Shaken Baby Syndrome Debate-Article

dmsbd_00021

dmsbd_0003

dmsbd_0004

dmsbd_00051

dmsbd_00064

Shaken Baby Syndrome Article

dmsbd_0006

Neuropsychological Performance 10 Years After Immunization in Infancy With Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

Neuropsychological Performance 10 Years After Immunization in Infancy With Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 2 February 2009, pp. 475-482

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE. Thimerosal, a mercury compound used as a preservative in vaccines administered during infancy, has been suspected to affect neuropsychological development. We compared the neuropsychological performance, 10 years after vaccination, of 2 groups of children exposed randomly to different amounts of thimerosal through immunization.

METHODS. Children who were enrolled in an efficacy trial of pertussis vaccines in 1992–1993 were contacted in 2003. Two groups of children were identified, according to thimerosal content in vaccines assigned randomly in the first year of life (cumulative ethylmercury intake of 62.5 or 137.5 µg), and were compared with respect to neuropsychological outcomes. Eleven standardized neuropsychological tests, for a total of 24 outcomes, were administered to children during school hours. Mean scores of neuropsychological tests in the domains of memory and learning, attention, executive functions, visuospatial functions, language, and motor skills were compared according to thimerosal exposure and gender. Standard regression coefficients obtained through multivariate linear regression analyses were used as a measure of effect.

RESULTS. Nearly 70% of the invited subjects participated in the neuropsychological assessment (N = 1403). Among the 24 neuropsychological outcomes that were evaluated, only 2 were significantly associated with thimerosal exposure. Girls with higher thimerosal intake had lower mean scores in the finger-tapping test with the dominant hand and in the Boston Naming Test.

CONCLUSIONS. Given the large number of statistical comparisons performed, the few associations found between thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological development might be attributable to chance. The associations found, although statistically significant, were based on small differences in mean test scores, and their clinical relevance remains to be determined.

 

Responses:

Il Mercurio and the AAP

An Addendum to February’s “First Read”

An Addendum to February’s “First Read”

It has been brought to my attention that in the study on thimerosal briefly highlighted below, I noted that groups did or did not get thimerosal and had similar results in terms of neuropsychological developmental outcomes. Reading of this study will indicate that both groups studied actually did have thimerosal in their vaccines, one group having 62.5 micrograms cumulative intake and the other 137.5 micrograms cumulative intake. While the amount of thimerosal in the lower group studied in Italy is less (according to the author of this study Dr. Tozzi) than the small amounts used in this country, I do want to correctly indicate there was no group studied that received no thimerosal whatsoever in their vaccines. The results of this study suggesting essentially minimal (if any) differences in developmental outcomes remains as stated–although a limitation as noted by Dr. Tozzi is that there was no comparison group with zero exposure to thimerosal. I appreciate the readers who have brought this to my attention so that I could more accurately clarify my interpretation of this study. Please read this article for yourself to learn more.

Truth or consequences about mercury

High levels of IgG4 antibodies to foods during infancy are associated with tolerance to corresponding foods later in life

High levels of IgG4 antibodies to foods during infancy are associated with tolerance to corresponding foods later in life

Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2009: 20: 35-41.

Abstract:

Children with eczema and sensitization to foods are recommended skin care and, if food allergy is proven by challenge, an elimination diet. For most children the diet period is transient, but the process behind tolerance development and the influence of decreased allergen exposure is not fully known. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of elimination diet on serum and salivary antibodies and to identify immunological parameters related to the ability to tolerate foods. Eighty-nine children, below 2 yr of age, with eczema and suspected food allergy were included. Recommended treatment was skin care to all children, and 60 children had a period of elimination diet. At 4½ yr of age, the children were divided into two groups, based on if they had been able to introduce the eliminated foods, or not. Serum and salivary antibodies were analyzed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and UniCAP® before and after a 6-wk treatment period and at 4½ yr of age. Children sensitized to egg and/or milk that could eat and drink the offending foods at 4½ yr of age, had higher levels of Immunoglobulin G4 antibodies to ovalbumin and β-lactoglobulin and also higher IgG4/Immunoglobulin E ratios on inclusion in the study, than those who had to eliminate egg and/or milk from their diet, beyond 4½ yr of age. The highest IgG4/IgE ratios were found in children with circulating IgE antibodies to egg and/or milk but negative skin prick test on inclusion. The 6-wk treatment period did not significantly affect the levels of serum and salivary antibodies. In conclusion, eczematous, food sensitized infants with high levels of IgG4 and high ratios of IgG4/IgE antibodies to food allergens are more likely to consume these foods at 4½ yr than infants with low levels and ratios.

Use Flaxseed to Boost Nutrition and Health

Use Flaxseed to Boost Nutrition and Health

If you’re interested in improving the quality of your diet, adding small amounts of flaxseed to your favorite foods is a quick and tasty way to accomplish your goal.

The flax plant is the source of fiber from which linen is woven, and it also yields edible seeds and oil. Flax has been part of the human diet for thousands of years, and for just as long, it has been valued for its health-promoting properties.

Flaxseed is a rich source of a number of beneficial nutrients, including vitamins, minerals and protein. With about 3 grams of fiber per tablespoon, flaxseed is a good source of roughage.

Adding more fiber to your diet can lower blood sugar and cholesterol levels, reducing the risk for heart disease and stroke. The combination of oil and fiber in flaxseed make it an excellent laxative and an effective remedy for sluggish bowels and chronic constipation.

Flaxseed contains plant estrogens called lignans. These natural compounds have been found to possess anti-tumor properties and appear to be especially beneficial in reducing the risk of breast and colon cancer.

In the body, lignans act as weak estrogens. Because their chemical structure is similar to the structure of the hormone estrogen produced by the female body, they’re capable of binding to the same cellular receptors.

When hormone-sensitive cells, including those of the breast and uterus, are occupied by the weak plant estrogens in flaxseed, they appear to be less susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of human estrogen.

While consumption of flaxseed is believed to help prevent breast cancer, researchers from the University of Toronto found that it also may be useful in the treatment of the disease. For their study, the Canadian scientists asked postmenopausal women who had been recently diagnosed with breast cancer to eat either a plain muffin or a muffin containing 25 grams of flaxseed every day for four weeks.

Women who ate the flaxseed muffins showed a significant reduction in the rate of tumor growth, as well as an increase in the death of cancerous cells. Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that dietary flaxseed has the potential to reduce tumor growth in women with breast cancer.

As plant estrogens, the lignans in flaxseed can help alleviate some symptoms of menopause.

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic found that postmenopausal women who consumed 40 grams of crushed flaxseed daily for six weeks experienced a welcome 57 percent reduction in the frequency and severity of hot flashes.

The women also reported noticeable improvements in mood, as well as reductions in joint and muscle pain. Combined, the benefits of consuming flaxseed significantly improved their health-related quality of life.

Flaxseed is an important source of an essential omega-3 fatty acid known as alpha-linolenic acid. Because essential fatty acids cannot be manufactured by the human body, they must be obtained from the diet.

Hundreds of scientific studies performed over the last decade suggest that most Americans don’t get enough omega-3 fatty acids for good health. Increased consumption of these beneficial fats has been shown to reduce the risk for heart disease by lowering cholesterol levels and decreasing the clotting potential of the blood.

The essential fatty acids in flaxseed have been credited with improving symptoms of dry eyes, psoriasis and eczema. Omega-3 fatty acids are known to possess potent anti-inflammatory properties, making flax a popular remedy for arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.

Flax is available at many supermarkets and most health food stores. Whole flaxseed can be eaten alone or added to other foods, but because the seeds may not be fully digested, other forms may be more beneficial.

Ground flaxseed is easier to digest and simple to use: You can add a tablespoon or two of ground flaxseed to hot or cold cereals or to a cup of yogurt. Adding a quarter-cup of ground flaxseed to recipes can boost the flavor and nutritional quality of baked goods, including muffins and breads, as well as meatloaf, chili and casseroles.

Flaxseed oil is best used as an ingredient in cold preparations, such as salad dressings and smoothies. While the oil is a good source of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, it doesn’t contain the protein, fiber or lignans found in the seeds of the flax plant.

Adding a sprinkle of ground flaxseed or a dash of flaxseed oil to your favorite foods is a simple way to improve the quality of your diet. It’s also a smart strategy to enhance your overall health.

Rallie McAllister is a board-certified family physician, speaker and the author of several books, including “Healthy Lunchbox: The Working Mom’s Guide to Keeping You and Your Kids Trim.” Her website is http://www.rallieonhealth.com. To find out more about Rallie McAllister, M.D., and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

Pharma + Professional Persecution = Profits!

Pharma + Professional Persecution = Profits!

Pharmaceutical Industries have few morals when it comes to dealing with professionals who step over the line and try to expose the adverse reactions to their vaccines and drugs.Of course the drug companies do not work alone, they foster strong connections with Governments,who in turn influence the medical profession and even the media. This allows the freedom to pedal their wares without the fear of reprisal. A whistle blowing professional is a spanner in their well oiled works and must be silenced quickly and efficiently, the methods the drug companies often use to do this can only be described as barbaric.

Of course one of the best ways in which to silence a troublesome professional is for them to be discredited, for once their reputation is completely destroyed, then no one is going to listen to what they have to say. It is surprising how many professionals who speak out about a vaccine or a drug suddenly find themselves with unusual complaints being sent into their Governing bodies or who have their work attacked unexpectedly.

Here there are several professionals who have complained about various vaccines and suddenly found themselves having to face disciplinary action because of complaints sent in to their Governing bodies.

First let us look at the case of the General Practitioner Peter Mansfield who works for the charity Desumo. Desumo, offered single Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccinations to parents who prefer them, to the MMR. Dr Mansfield was seen to be by many as a doctor with some controversial views on several health matters one being, that the MMR is unsafe.

He now joins the growing list of professionals that have been referred to their governing bodies for voicing their opinion and daring to speak out. His crime, to offer to parents who refuse to allow their children to have the MMR, single vaccinations instead. No big deal you may think but his actions infuriated the authorities who have invested vast sums of money into the MMR vaccination programme. His punishment for daring to go against them, was the General Medical Council dragging him up before the Intrim Orders committee, following a complaint from Worcester health authority, where Mansfield had been giving the the single jabs, alleging that he has been putting children “at risk” because his actions are “at variance with normal clinical practice”. The Department of Health does not permit the single measles vaccine on the NHS.

In a document called GMC Used by Pharma to Eliminate Competition Mr Clifford Miller a lawyer explains how the Pharmaceutical Industries use several organizations to eliminate practices and practitioners who go against Government policies. He writes:-

“There is information indicating that some parts of the pharmaceutical industry and medical professions have been targeting, and picking off one by one, doctors and others providing care and treatments which are not in the mainstream.Such treatments are likely to be less profitable to some parts of the drug industry and especially if they are allowed to become popular”

He continues to explain:-

“There is hard information which shows unequivocally that the ABPI (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry) are implicated in setting up a case against Dr Wakefield and were involved with the Sunday Times behind the scenes, setting Dr Wakefield and colleagues up in 2003 for a GMC hearing before a word was printed by the Sunday Times in 2004. At the time it was an open boast that the ABPI were involved and were providing funding. Since then someone appears to have been trying (unsuccessfully) to batten down the hatches after the horse has bolted. There is also disturbing information regarding the case of Dr Peter Mansfield, who was also complained about to the GMC and had to face a hearing over the MMR vaccine.”

I have found many cases where professionals who have spoken out against various vaccines have had cases brought against them. Dr. Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D., is president of Genetic Centers of America. He has been a consultant and expert witness in many cases presented to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in civil litigation.

…How do pharmaceutical companies and their lackeys in industry, media, politics and the legal system get away with burdening society with masses of poisonous and dangerous drugs, whilst suppressing research into natural and safer alternatives?”

With drug companies like Eli Lilly obtaining court orders to hide documents that show the company illegally marketed Zyprexa for unapproved uses and failed to warn the public about the serious health risks associated with the drug for a decade Read here and TeenScreen rife in the USA giving the drug companies a free hand to pedal their drugs in schools. read here Seemingly able to use marketing ploys to fool parents that their children are mentally ill, whilst bribing their children with incentives such as free cinema tickets and treats, to fill in questionnaires. I feel there is just one question remaining and that is, just how far will our drug companies go, when persecuting the professionals who stand in their way of making big bucks?

Full Article

Parents Should Not be Legally Liable for Refusing to Vaccinate their Children

Parents Should Not be Legally Liable for Refusing to Vaccinate their Children

Jay Gordon 

* Fellow, American Academy of Pediatrics.
† Suggested citation: Jay Gordon, Commentary, Parents Should Not Be Legally Liable for Refusing to Vaccinate Their Children, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 95 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/diekema.pdf.

Introduction 

Should a parent who takes advantage of a personal belief exemption to avoid vaccinating a child be held liable if that child infects other people? No, because there are valid medical reasons for choosing this exemption and tracing direct transmission of these illnesses from an unvaccinated child to another person is virtually impossible. 

I have been a pediatrician in private practice for nearly thirty years. I was conventionally trained, completed a residency in pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles and was the Senior Fellow in Pediatric Nutrition at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City. Over many years, seeing thousands of children, my point of view about childhood vaccines has changed. I believe that parents have the right to decide when and how their children receive vaccinations and also have the right to decline any or all vaccines. Like many medical interventions, vaccines have risks and benefits, and parents may elect nonvaccination as the better choice for an individual child. The societal ramifications are significant and should certainly be a part of any discussion. 

When children or babies who have been in contact with other children (or adults) contract most illnesses, there is no feasible way to know from whom they got the disease. Whether one is talking about a routine winter viral illness, chickenpox, or whooping cough, the contagion could have come from a child with overt disease signs and symptoms, an asymptomatic carrier, or another, perhaps mutual, contact. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so that even a fully vaccinated child can contract an illness or carry that illness and give it to another child. Blaming a specific individual—let alone suing one—because your child gets sick has no credible medical basis.  

I. Parents May Be Justified in Declining to
Vaccinate Their Children

There are many valid reasons to support vaccination, but they don’t support removing the right to refuse vaccinations. There are also situations—medical and personal—which justify waiving all or some childhood vaccines, but these are not good reasons to abandon vaccines altogether.

Twenty states (including Michigan) allow parents to waive any or all vaccines for personal or philosophical reasons. These children may still attend school at all levels, but the school system reserves the right to exclude these children in the event of an outbreak. This is a firm commitment on the part of the government to protect the rights of parents to participate fully in this important healthcare decision. Parents who feel that the risks of vaccinating outweigh the benefits are entitled medically and legally to waive vaccines. Section 6051 of the California Code states that “[a] pupil with a permanent medical exemption or a personal beliefs exemption to immunization shall be admitted unconditionally.” Similar wording appears in most of the state laws allowing a personal belief exemption. These are not whimsical choices on the part of the legislators, the parents, or the doctors who support this right. Parents who vaccinate their children base their decisions on the advice they receive from their pediatricians and the other knowledge they have gathered. Parents who choose to waive vaccinations do so for similarly valid reasons.

Adverse outcomes can occur from both vaccination and nonvaccination. Vaccines work very well at creating immunity to illnesses, so there are very few situations that would likely lead to transmission of an illness from an unvaccinated child to a vaccinated child. The obvious exceptions would be infants too young to have received a full complement of shots and immuno-compromised children. Parents must protect these two groups of children by keeping them away from too many other children. Period. Newborns and young babies are at risk any time they are in public. We can only vaccinate against a very small minority of contagious illnesses; it is unwise to bring your newborn into preschool when you pick up your toddler, and equally risky to attend older children’s birthday parties with this baby. Further, parents of children taking high dose steroids for asthma or receiving immunosuppressive medicine for other diseases are strongly cautioned by their doctors to avoid the potential dangers I have described.

There are valid reasons for giving all the recommended vaccines, but parents’ ambivalence is supported not just by instinct or alleged self-interest but also by medical literature questioning the effectiveness of immunizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) funded a peer-reviewed article about flu shots published in the October 2008 issue of the highly respected Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. It concluded:

[S]ignificant influenza VE [vaccine effectiveness] could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting after adjusting for county, sex, insurance, chronic conditions recommended for influenza vaccination, and timing of influenza vaccination (VE estimates ranged from 7%–52% across settings and seasons for fully vaccinated 6- to 59-month-olds). . . . In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine match.

We have known for years that flu shots do not work well in older adults; newer research questions their efficacy in children, too. 

Another example involves chickenpox. The Varicella Zoster virus (“VZV”) causes chickenpox in children; the illness is virtually always benign and leaves the child with immunity to chickenpox. In adults, this virus also can cause “shingles,” an extremely painful illness. VZV can live in the nervous system for years and then reactivate in adults whose immune systems no longer suppress it.  

Fortunately, continued occasional exposure to children with chickenpox usually keeps the antibody level against the virus high enough so that shingles is not terribly common. That is the state of medical care in most of Europe where governments and the medical establishment have refused to officially recommend universal vaccination against chickenpox. Among many studies supporting this refusal is a report in the prestigious medical journal Vaccine written by researchers at Britain’s Public Health Laboratory Service, who found that “eliminating chickenpox in a country the size of the United States would prevent 186 million cases of the disease and 5,000 deaths over 50 years. However . . . they said it could also result in 21 million more cases of shingles and 5,000 deaths.”

Of course, we have been quite successful in reducing certain childhood diseases to almost insignificant numbers in the United States, Western Europe, and many other places. (Somalia experienced its first polio-free year in 2008.) And widespread vaccination directly led to this success. 

In March 2005, Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, held a press conference to announce that “[t]he elimination of rubella in the United States is a tremendous step in protecting the health and well being of pregnant women and infants.” A viral illness feared by pregnant women “is no longer considered to be a major public health threat in the United States.”  

Another success story involves measles. The United States averages about 60 cases of this viral illness each year. In 2008, the country is on course to have about 160 cases among 300 million Americans. However, the media have managed to turn these extra 100 cases into a cause célèbre for vilifying parents who question the currently recommended schedule of twenty-five or more separate injections over the first two years of life.  

In 1960, if a parent were presented with a dilemma about the polio vaccine and hypothetical side effects, the decision would not have been too difficult given the prevalence of polio during that time period. In 2008 or 2009, the illness is rare worldwide: we are on target for about 1700 cases on the entire planet in 2008 with all but 100 of the cases being in India,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Angola, or Afghanistan. The benefits, both personal and societal, of the polio vaccine were so clear thirty or forty years ago that parents and doctors easily agreed on universal vaccination.

“Childhood vaccines save 33,000 lives each year in the United States.” This statement has been made so often that no one seems to question the absence of logical thinking behind it. The numbers are based on medical care in the early to mid-1900s. There is no way to estimate how many lives vaccines are saving, and a similar estimate of harm from vaccines is difficult to calculate. As a result, a parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child is being unfairly vilified. 

II. Parents Should Not Be Liable for Placing Their Children’s Best Interests Above Universal Vaccination Policies  

In the absence of facts, doctors and others are trying to frighten people into vaccinating or not vaccinating. That fear includes the notions that unvaccinated children pose a great threat to others and that parents of these children are not being responsible. In fact, these parents are choosing what they consider to be the safest course of action for their children and pose very little, if any, danger to other children and adults. 

Some medical interventions are not controversial, and some prompt only mild controversy. For example, if a child has acute lymphocytic leukemia, the cure rate with conventional medical care approaches ninety percent, and very few doctors or parents will argue against the standard treatments offered in spite of their known complications and adverse reactions. But vaccines are presently controversial, and purported truths about safety and efficacy are challenged daily by lay people and physicians. 

Very few medical actions are risk free. Prior to surgery or when medication is prescribed, your doctor explains the risks and benefits. For surgery, the consent form is often many pages long with dire warnings about what can go wrong. Childhood vaccines are shipped to my office with a long thin package insert detailing how the shots are manufactured, what they contain, and what can and has gone wrong. The last lines in many of these inserts sound ominous: “This vaccine has not been evaluated in animals for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or for impairment of fertility.” I seriously doubt that vaccines are a large source of cancer, genetic mutation, or impaired fertility. However, any time I inject a vaccine into a child there is potential for adverse outcome. I respect parents’ questions and objections to our current vaccine schedule. Parents have the absolute right to participate in these medical discussions, and not giving them the information they need to make informed decisions is inadequate medical care. Not seeking out this information is an abrogation of parental responsibilities. 

The list of side effects from adverse reactions to vaccines, in a Physicians’ Desk Reference “warning” section, given out of context, would probably frighten many parents out of vaccinating at all. There are thirty or more items on that list. Similarly, the list of symptoms and complications of the illnesses against which we vaccinate could scare parents into giving every shot available as soon as possible.

Pediatricians and other physicians use the latter option on a daily basis. I share my colleagues’ disdain for scare tactics from the “antivaccine” camp, but I object equally to doctors using fear and misinformation to try to convince parents (and legislators) that vaccines are risk free. Both sides are distorting the truth for their own purposes. Childhood illnesses are part of the first decade of life; immunity is acquired, and the consequences are almost always minor.  

Modern medical care has completely changed the morbidity and mortality rates associated with virtually every single infectious disease. Yet, the “33,000” number is used in the media as if we actually know how many children would succumb to these illnesses in the absence of vaccines in the twenty-first century. We do not really have any idea what this number would actually be with twenty-first century medications and care. And unvaccinable diseases are far, far more common and, realistically, a greater concern for parents: toddlers get eight to ten or more colds each year. To restate a very important point, even vaccinated children can carry diseases like pertussis and mumps. There are no completely reliable medical or laboratory tests showing who infected whom. 

Conclusion 

Vaccines work. They carry some risk but are a viable method of preventing contagious diseases. Parents who choose not to vaccinate their children accept responsibility for their actions, do not endanger others, and must retain this right. There is no medical basis for holding them liable. 

Much High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated With Mercury…

 

Much High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated With Mercury,

New Study Finds Brand-Name Food Products Also Discovered to Contain Mercury

 

 

Minneapolis – Mercury was found in nearly 50 percent of tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), according to a new article published today in the scientific journal, Environmental Health. A separate study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brandname food and beverage products where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient—including products by Quaker, Hershey’s, Kraft and Smucker’s.

 

 

HFCS use has skyrocketed in recent decades as the sweetener has replaced sugar in

many processed foods. HFCS is found in sweetened beverages, breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS. Consumption by teenagers and other high consumers can be up to 80 percent above average levels.

 

 

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms,” said IATP’s David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author in both studies. “Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are

calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable

mercury contamination of the food supply.”

 

 

In the Environmental Health article, Dufault et al. found detectable levels of mercury

in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS. Dufault was working at the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration when the tests were done in 2005. She and co-authors conclude

that possible mercury contamination of food chemicals like HFCS was not common

knowledge within the food industry that frequently uses the sweetener. While the FDA had evidence that commercial HFCS was contaminated with mercury four years ago, the agency did not inform consumers, help change industry practice or conduct additional testing.

 

 

For its report “Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup,” IATP

sent 55 brand-name foods and beverages containing HFCS as the first or second ingredient to a commercial laboratory to be tested for total mercury. Nearly one in three products tested contained detectable mercury. Mercury was most prevalent in HFCScontaining dairy products, followed by dressings and condiments. Attached is the summary list of the 55 products and their total mercury content.

 

 

In making HFCS, caustic soda is used, among other things, to separate corn starch

from the corn kernel. For decades, HFCS has been made using mercury-grade caustic soda produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants. The use of mercury cells to produce caustic soda can contaminate caustic soda, and ultimately HFCS, with mercury. “The bad news is that nobody knows whether or not their soda or snack food contains HFCS made from ingredients like caustic soda contaminated with mercury,” said Dr. Wallinga. “The good news is that mercury-free HFCS ingredients exist. Food companies just need a good push to only use those ingredients.”

 

 

While most chlorine plants around the world have switched to newer, cleaner technologies, many still rely on the use of mercury cells. In 2005, 90 percent of chlorine production was mercury-free, but just 40 percent of European production was mercury-free. Four U.S. chlor-alkali plants still rely on mercury cell technology. In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced legislation to force the remaining chlor-alkali plants to phase out mercury cell technology by 2012.

 

The Environmental Health article by Dufault et al. can be found at: http://www.ehjournal.net.

 

“Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup,” by David Wallinga, M.D., Janelle Sorensen,Pooja Mottl and Brian Yablon, M.D., can be found at: http://www.iatp.org.

 

IATP works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. www.iatp.org

cornsyrupnmercury3

cornsyrupnmercury21

Vaccinations: Safe or Unsafe?

Vaccinations: Safe or Unsafe?

by Lynda Lambert
In 1954, at the age of 8, I “read” an article in Life Magazine about polio and how it was treated. Stuck, even now, in my mind is the double-page picture of the children in iron lungs. It seemed like there were acres of them; as far as the eye could see. I learned only one thing from those pictures of iron lungs: I never wanted to be in one.So, when my mom said, “Don’t play in puddles?” I didn’t. And when my mom said, “Wash your hands!” I did. And, when the government said to all of us, line up to get your shot, I could hardly wait to get to the head of the line. I feared shots; but I feared polio more.

And when they told us to line up again a few years later and suck down Sabin’s sugar cube, I didn’t hesitate: the more immunization, the better.

I was not the only one who thought that way. For the last 50-plus years, the entire government structure, from the Centers for Disease Control to local departments of Education and the Congress of the United States, has based its public vaccination policy on that concept: the more immunization, the better.

However, given the natural exposure to disease—if there were no vaccines and no vaccinations—most children would only contract two to three childhood diseases in a lifetime. As example: I had measles and mumps; my sister had measles and scarlet fever (no vaccine for that). My daughter had a tendency toward croup, but her only disease in the “childhood” category was chickenpox, which she got at the age of 12. It is simply irrational to think that any child would be in a position to contract 11 to 15 different diseases in a lifetime

Government requires every child in the United States, if he or she is going to attend school, to have a minimum of 11 immunizations. In some states, it’s more; for instance, Maryland requires 15 immunizations.

However, government requires every child in the United States, if he or she is going to attend school, to have a minimum of 11 immunizations. In some states, it’s more; for instance, Maryland requires 15 immunizations. The Congress has recommended 22. These result in 36 to 60 injections for our children before the age of three. Averaged out at the top end, that’s 1.6 shots a month, beginning with their first month of life.

There are some serious problems with this. They fall into two main categories: the viruses themselves and the dilutions through which they are delivered.

Vaccines: too much disease

Imagine what would happen to your body if you, an adult with a mature immune system, contracted measles, mumps and Rubella at the same time. Are you saying, “Well, I’d probably die!”? Indeed. The human immune system, even when it’s fully mature, totally healthy and balanced, is simply not equipped to deal with that much disease all at one time. It is debilitating; it often causes what is called a compromised immune system, one that has difficulty performing the task for which nature designed it.

Yet, vaccines simulate disease. Inside the body, when a vaccination is given, our immune systems believe they are getting the disease. That’s why they react to the vaccine and create antibodies to it. And every time we shoot a child up with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine (MMR), we are simulating that hypothetical situation in which the child’s immature immune system thinks that it is getting all of these diseases at the same time.

The MMR & DPT

In the United States, the link between the MMR and autism continues to be denied by government and the drug companies; but there are proven statistical commonalities among children who have been vaccinated and autism. One study, for instance, showed that among the Amish, who do not vaccinate their children, there could only be found three cases of autism. All three of these children had come to the community from “outside” and all had been vaccinated.

The Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) shot is another that “infects” our children with three diseases at a time. And there are some definitive data that link the DPT shot to ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, dissociative disorder, schizophrenia, seizures, Crohn’s disease, and, yes, autism. But, even without these possible long-term debilitating complications, the DPT has immediate deleterious effects.

“Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” (Coulter, HL and Fischer, BL quoted in Rappaport, J., 2003 [emphasis added])

Allergies

I am someone who carries a medic alert bracelet which says, “allergic to all tetanus toxoids.” I had so many tetanus shots as a child—when they gave them to you for every bee sting—that I will now go into anaphylactic shock if a tetanus shot is administered. The last tentanus shot I had was in 1960; I was violently ill for more than two weeks and almost died.

In 1965, I rammed my heel on a rusty nail, but convinced the doctor to test me for toxoid allergy before giving me a tentanus shot. He injected 1/100th of the normal dose under my skin. Then, as he was telling me to come back in two days so he could see the reaction, he suddenly went mute and sat amazed as my forearm swelled to twice its normal size. It stayed that way for more than two weeks. He did not, needless to say, give me that shot.

The reason my arm swelled up was because, as far as my immune system was concerned, the toxoid was an invading enemy that needed fighting. It had built up immunity to the shot itself. My system sent thousands of antibodies and plenty of blood to the location of the invasion to fight it; and, had I been injected, my system would have attacked my entire body to stop it.

Allergies indicate a malfunction of the immune response, and, as my case shows, can be caused by too much vaccination. But none of our children are tested for allergic reactions to these vaccines before they are administered, even though the onset of autism, for instance, does not usually occur until the second MMR shot— and it is known that 90% of immunity is produced by the first.

Allergic reactions, however, do not necessarily show themselves only in allergic reactions to the vaccinations. The corrupted immune response can show itself in allergies to other normal things, like food.

Today’s children have more allergies, particularly to food, than any generation before them. These responses are often life-threatening, systemic, and can be directly correlated to out-of-whack immune systems.

Food allergies are particularly symptomatic of immune system malfunction in the intestinal tract, as are bowel diseases, because 70% of our immune function is resident in our gastrointestinal tract. When the gastrointestinal tract is in good working order, then we have a 70% chance of remaining healthy, have few allergies, and few problems like diabetes and asthma. When it is out of balance, then the whole body gets out of balance.

Dr. Daniel More reports that “Allergy to egg, milk, soy, wheat, peanut and tree nuts represents 90% of all food allergies in children.” The peanut allergy, in particular, is ubiquitous. In 2007, Dr. Michael C. Young, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a practitioner at Children’s Hospital, answered some questions about this for PBS. He said:

“The number of kids with peanut allergies has been increasing over the last ten to fifteen years. In the past five years, the number has doubled…. In fact, all allergic diseases in children—including food allergies, environmental allergies, asthma and eczema—have been increasing at similar rates over the last decade.”

DrGreene.com reports that “most children who develop life-threatening food allergies either have asthma or a family history of asthma, eczema, or hay fever.”

Interestingly, neither Dr. Young nor Dr. Green could come up with a reason. “No one knows why this is happening,” said Dr. Young. Yet, all of these conditions indicate a corrupted immune system. And what has been happening over the last 15 to 20 years that could corrupt young immune systems? Increased vaccination should top the list, one would think.

In a study of autistic children, doctors found a “high prevalence of histologic [tissue] abnormalities in the esophagus, stomach, small intestine and colon, and dysfunction of liver conjugation capacity and intestinal permeability were reported. Three surveys conducted in the United States described high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autistic disorder” (Horvath, K, and Perman, J.A.,2002).

In other words, children who had autism also had tissue disruptions in the very part of their bodies which hold 70% of their immune function. It is not too far to jump to assume that the immune system destruction may have contributed to the autism, and not the other way around.

I am fascinated by the fact that no doctor anywhere seems to want to even look at this relationship; yet it seems very plain and obvious. It’s not as if we haven’t openly recognized the dangers of vaccines in the past.

We made a good decision with smallpox 30 years ago. We stopped vaccinating for smallpox because the risk of the vaccination outweighed the risk of getting the disease. We recently stopped administering the Sabin live polio vaccine, because it had been causing children to get polio.

Even so, in an article about vaccination published by the Baltimore Sun (2008), a Dr. Neal Halsey was quoted as saying that, “One of the reasons that some parents have withheld measles vaccines is that they believe that the risk is very low. This is, unfortunately, a false belief.”

In fact, the parents are correct and Dr. Halsey is incorrect. The highest number of cases of measles in the U.S. in recent years reported by the CDC is 131; that makes the chance of getting measles approximately 1 in 2 million. If the MMR does, in fact, cause autism, then the risk for autism is much higher than the risk of getting the disease. The current risk of getting autism is 1 in 5.

Of course, many will say that the reason the risk of measles is so low is that children have been getting vaccinated against measles. And, though this may be true, the same was true for smallpox; the risk of the shot now outweighs the risk of getting the disease.

But it is not just the viruses themselves that cause problems; preservatives and contaminants must be considered when looking at these complications and reactions.

Additives, Preservatives and Dilutions

Everyone remembers the Mad Hatter from the tale of Alice in Wonderland. What some of you may not know is that mad hatters were very prevalent in 19th Century. In order to mold hats, the hatter would immerse the hat and his hands in vats of mercury, eventually—and unalterably—becoming poisoned. In the 21st century, we are still concerned with mercury poisoning. We stopped using mercury thermometers, for instance, because of the “risk”. We’ve stopped putting mercury in tooth fillings. But the fact is that these minute amounts of mercury did not cause direct harm. Large amounts, however, do.

An environmental website, Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, reported in 2005 that:

“Since the 1950s it has been known that when women eat fish highly contaminated with mercury, their children are at risk for mental retardation, seizures and other serious problems. Yet trash incinerators and coal-burning power plants continue to emit tons of mercury [70 million tons a day, to be exact], which builds up in the food chain to contaminate fish. The result is that many fish species are now unsafe to eat. Women of childbearing age and small children have been warned to no longer eat tuna steaks, shark, swordfish, or any fish from Massachusetts ponds and rivers. Eating these fish increases the risk of permanent harm (such as learning and attention problems) to the developing fetus or young child. In spite of this damage to an important food source, the industries that emit mercury continue to lobby against mercury reductions. Now 1 out of 10 women of child-bearing age have mercury levels that exceed the advised safe limit, putting untold numbers of future children at risk for learning and attention problems.” (emphasis added)

A website called Toxfaqs, posted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), states that:

“Very young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. … Mercury’s harmful effects… include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.”

The National Autistic Society writes that “75 symptoms of autism parallel those of mercury poisoning.” Recent experiments in treating autism as mercury poisoning are, in fact, resulting in some cures.

One wonders, then, why the government would compel us to deliberately pump more mercury into our children’s healthy bodies. Some Hepatitis B vaccines and the flu vaccine are still preserved with thimerosal, a trade name for a form of mercury preservative, which began being used as a preservative in vaccines since 1931.

You might be agreeing with the American Association of Pediatrics, saying, “Well, heck, if it’s been used since 1931, then it must be safe.” But, in fact, in 1931, the only vaccine that was given to children was smallpox; and it was never injected into the body, but was only pricked into the skin. And, even though it seems that that would not be enough to poison a child, it was the beginning of autism, which, up to that point, had never been documented before.

In 2001, two Massachusetts families, parents of autistic children, filed suit against the makers of “hepatitis B, diptheria/tetanus and other vaccines,” alleging that their children had been “poisoned with toxic mercury” (Hepatitis Week, vol. 1, 33).

HepB

Hepatitus B is a blood or fluid transmitted disease. Like HIV, it is prevalent among drug users and those who have unprotected sex. One would not think that an infant is not in need of a vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease, unless he or she has a chance of exposure in the womb. In British Columbia (BC), for example, the vaccine is only given to infants if they are “… born to a mother with hepatitis B or a mother at high risk of the infection, or a baby who has another household contact or a caregiver with hepatitis B infection.” And, in BC, the first shot is given at two months, after the baby’s breathing reflex, eating, etc., have stabilized.

But in the United States, where the CDC reports only 10,000 cases of the disease every year, unless the parents file a protest and say they will not allow the vaccination (which few parents are even told they can do), their perfect newborn baby will be vaccinated for HepB when he is only two hours old—even if there is no indication of current or potential exposure. At two hours old, a child’s body is still adjusting to being outside the womb and his entire immune system is dependent on his mother’s milk.

And, although other countries are more cautious, in the U.S., the HepB vaccination is considered “safe.” But what is “safe”?

Michael Belkin, who was at the time Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), in testimony before the Center of Disease Control’s (CDC) Committee on Immunization Practices in 1999, said the following in regard to HepB vaccine:

“As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.

“A benefit/risk analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine for the average infant in America, not born to infected parents, must conclude that the VAERS data on adverse reactions shows the real-world risk of a newborn infant dying or being injured by the hepatitis B vaccine is a greater threat than the remote chance of contracting the primarily blood-transmitted disease. (emphasis added)

“My 5-week-old daughter, Lyla Rose, died within 16 hours of her hepatitisB vaccination, which she received because of the universal vaccination policy this Committee instituted in 1991. At her death, Lyla had four of the eight highest-reported symptoms in the VAERS hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction data. The NY Medical Examiner observed brain swelling at the autopsy but refused to record that or mention the hepatitis B vaccine Lyla received in the autopsy report.” (Belkin)

Belkin also noted in further testimony that:

“…the CDC’s own Fact Sheet on the Hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infants/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients—NOT NEWBORN BABIES.”

HepB, however, does not just pose the risk of sudden death. Rheumatic fever, encephalitis, and optic neuritis, as well as other debilitating diseases are all on the list. For instance, in France, the HepB vaccine has been suspended for everyone, even adults, “due to its association with Multiple Sclerosis” (thinktwice.com).

How can this vaccine be listed as “safe”? Perhaps the reason is similar to why vaccines containing mercury were considered “safe” for so long.

The Kennedy Report

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in 2005, wrote a startling exposé concerning the relationship between mercury and an international increase in autism, and the government’s cover-up of that relationship. Among other things, he notes that as early as 1935 the safety of thimerosal was being questioned, and:

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931….

Skeptics often say, well, if thimerosal is the culprit, then why are has the number of autistic cases only increased precipitously in children born between 1989 and 2003 (Kennedy, 2005). It is, quite obviously, the increase in the number of vaccinations required of this generation; every one of which, at that time, contained thimerosal.

“Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit” (Kennedy, 2005). Yet, in this country, though many vaccines are no longer preserved with mercury, we do not recognize the connection. The reasons are exposed in Kennedy’s report. The Bush Administration, in power when a definitive connection between thimerosoal and autism was discovered—and heavily supported by the pharmaceutical industry—wanted to avoid lawsuits that might put those companies out of business, and so actively chose to cover-up the information.

Kennedy claims:

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings [that directly linked autism and thimerosol], even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

To me, this is just plain stupid. If someone does something with good intentions, not knowing that it may be harmful, then they should not be held responsible. However, if they find that it is harmful, and yet keep doing it, then that is an altogether different matter. What the government did by covering up this information was commit a criminal act, which has so far resulted in the mental, emotional, and physical damage to thousands of children.

As one researcher put it in the Kennedy report:

“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”

Mercury preservative is still used in vaccines exported to other countries; and, as noted above, in some HepB and flu vaccines; yet the government continues to require their administration. Just this winter (2008), the governor of New Jersey made flu shots for infants mandatory.

Admittedly, since 2000, most mercury preservatives have been removed in most vaccine shots in the U.S.; however, other additives and preservatives have taken its place. For instance, aluminum is now often added to vaccines.

In a study done on animals by the Department of Opthalmology and Program in Neuroscience, University of British Columbia and reported in Neuromolecular Medicine (2007), it was found that:

“Apoptotic neurons were identified in aluminum-injected animals that showed significantly increased activated caspase-3 labeling in lumbar spinal cord (255%) and primary motor cortex (192%) compared with the controls. Aluminum-treated groups also showed significant motor neuron loss (35%) and increased numbers of astrocytes (350%) in the lumbar spinal cord.” (Note: Apoptosis—the syndrome caused by apoptotic neurons—is, according to Webster’s medical dictionary, “a … process of cell self-destruction that is marked by the fragmentation of nuclear DNA,”)

The adult HepB vaccine contains “… aluminum phosphate and aluminum hydroxide as adjuvants and 2-phenoxyethanol as a preservative.” (CDC, 2006)

Kennedy reports that, in 1982, “Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs” suggested that there were “non-toxic alternatives” to these preservatives, and “‘The best way to go… is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”

But, even if the government were to finally follow that advice, the fact is that preservatives are not the only problem.

Other Toxins

Much has been made of the toxins in cigarettes. Second-hand smoke has been linked—albeit with many qualifiers—to every childhood ailment from sudden infant death to asthma. Yet, even if you consider impossible exposure to cigarette smoke—24/7 in a non-vented environment—the amount of these chemicals entering the body are minuscule compared to those that would enter the body if those chemicals were directly injected into a child’s bloodstream.

You, say, “But this would never happen!” Well… cigarette toxins include formaldehyde, benzene, acetone, ammonia, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, and more; vaccine toxins include formaldehyde, antifreeze, acetone, disinfectant, borax, and latex, and more. The biggest difference is that the vaccine toxins are directly injected into a child’s body every time he or she receives a vaccination.

Vaccines also can contain some unique toxins that do not occur in cigarettes, such as MSG, methanol, dye, and glycerine. Then, too, a vaccine may include “ingredients” that supposedly support the actual immune response, such as “aborted human foetus cells,” “mutated human viruses,” and “animal organ tissues and blood.”

One of the most effective vaccines—and supposedly one of the “safest” because it contains no preservatives of any kind—is the chicken-pox vaccine (Varivax). The Merck website lists the following ingredients.

Each 0.5 mL dose contains the following: a minimum of 1350 PFU (plaque forming units) of Oka/Merck varicella virus when reconstituted and stored at room temperature for 30 minutes, approximately 25 mg of sucrose, 12.5 mg hydrolyzed gelatin, 3.2 mg sodium chloride, 0.5 mg monosodium L-glutamate, 0.45 mg of sodium phosphate dibasic, 0.08 mg of potassium phosphate monobasic, 0.08 mg of potassium chloride; residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein; and trace quantities of sodium phosphate monobasic, EDTA, neomycin, and fetal bovine serum.

Are any of these substances that you want in your child’s bloodstream? Serum made from cow fetuses? Potassium chloride? MSG?

Is it worth it?

Vaccination is dangerous. There is simply no getting around that. Yet, if it really works to stop some of the most dangerous diseases from spreading and decimating whole populations, then it is worth it. And there is some evidence that it does work. Still, there is some evidence that it doesn’t.

In investigating the effectiveness of vaccines, I found, for instance, that polio was already on the decline when the polio vaccine was administered to thousands of us.

In some instances, as with whooping cough, I found that vaccination does not seem to have any effect, or may have a negative effect. As well, there is some evidence that with increased vaccination for pertussis came increases in the number of cases of pertussis. A report in Lancet, the British medical journal, stated that:

“While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71…, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination [39%], a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” (Ehrengut, 1978)

And the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that,

“Administration of KMV [killed measles vaccine] apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” (1980, vol. 244, p. 804).

And then, there are some vaccines whose effectiveness simply wanes with time. The chickenpox vaccine, for instance, has been shown to lose its effectiveness after 10 years. This is a problem, because chickenpox when one is age 5 or 10 is not dangerous, but chickenpox as an adult can be very dangerous.

Or, sometimes, the vaccinations simply don’t “take” and children are susceptible to the disease anyway. In a Baltimore Sun article, it was noted that in a study measuring the effectiveness of vaccines, of 131 children who came down with measles, “… 11 of the 131 had been vaccinated.” That means that even with vaccination, that group still had a 30% chance of getting the disease.

A New York Times article gave another measles example that occurred in 1994. “Out of 625 children exposed to the disease, 17 got measles. Of those 609 who had previously been vaccinated, only 10 (or 1.6%) developed measles. Of the 16 children who were not immunized, 7 (or 44%) developed measles. Thus, the risk for immunized children was less than 2% while the risk for un-immunized children was 44%.”

It is true that “7 of 16” equals 44%, that does not equate to a 44% chance of getting the disease. Indeed, it seems to me that to get the correct percentages, one would need to compare both 7 and 10 to the full complement of the study, which, if one does so, shows that of 625 children, immunized children, had a 1.6% chance of getting the disease and unimmunized children had a 1.1% chance of getting the disease.

It is often said that un-immunized children pose a risk to immunized children, but that should not be the case. If one is immunized, then the unimmunized should carry no risk at all. Unimmunized children should have a higher risk of getting the disease; however, based on the above numbers, this appears to be incorrect.

Conclusion

New vaccines are being discovered all the time, and most of them are immediately slated for the childhood immunization requirements. Gardasil, for instance, hit the world by storm. Wow! A vaccine to save girls from cervical cancer. Gotta use it!

In fact, it was so well sold that it whizzed through FDA approval, and was adopted as mandatory for girls over 12 in Texas, and the UK placed it on the list of mandatory vaccinations for children in 2007. All that was before three healthy young women died within days of receiving the vaccine… before a series of women who didn’t even know they were pregnant had miscarriages… before the 1,700 other women suffered everything from blood clots to paralysis and seizures.

All this reminds me of the birth control pills that killed many women before anyone would even admit that they were dangerous. The makers of Gardasil are still trying to say, “Oh, no, it wasn’t our fault.” But the British Telegraph reported said that, if this shot stays on the list of required vaccinations, children taking Gardasil would be “no better than human guinea pigs.”

It seems to me that, perhaps, we have all been guinea pigs in the study of vaccination. And, perhaps, it was worth taking a chance on when there was a real danger of world-wide epidemics of smallpox or polio, and only a very few children were harmed by being vaccinated. But this is no longer the case.

The immediate, known risk to a child from multiple vaccines is more dangerous than the possible risk of almost any childhood disease. Instead, we have epidemics of autism, food allergies, childhood diabetes, childhood cancer, immune deficiency syndromes, and more, all of which may be directly related to vaccination. Surely, if there is only a chance this is true—and I think there is more than a “chance”—then we should suspend all mandatory vaccination and begin to study unvaccinated populations to see if they have the same problems that the vaccinated do.

It is time that the health of our children was put back in our own hands. The government simply has no right to make such a choice for us. It has no right to ask us to knowingly poison the smallest and most defenseless among us. We have to end mandatory vaccination now, before any more children are harmed or killed.

Michael Belkin’s final comments about Hep B vaccine before the CDC sum it up better than I can:

At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical—and is a crime against the children of America.

HepB, MMR, DPT, Chickenpox… for all of them, the dangers of vaccination are real. More is not better. Wholesale vaccination needs to be stopped. Now.

References:

<!–

–>

US Infant Mortality Trends…

US Infant Mortality Trends Attributable to Accidental Suffocation and Strangulation in Bed From 1984 Through 2004: Are Rates Increasing?

PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 2 February 2009, pp. 533-539

OBJECTIVE. Accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, a subgroup of sudden, unexpected infant deaths, is a leading mechanism of injury-related infant deaths. We explored trends and characteristics of these potentially preventable deaths.

METHODS. In this descriptive study, we analyzed US infant mortality data from 1984 through 2004. To explore trends in accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed and other sudden, unexpected infant deaths, we calculated cause-specific infant mortality rates and estimated proportionate mortality. Sudden, unexpected infant death was defined as a combination of all deaths attributed to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed, sudden infant death syndrome, and unknown causes. Finally, we examined factors that were reported as contributing to these accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed deaths.

RESULTS. Between 1984 and 2004, infant mortality rates attributed to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed increased from 2.8 to 12.5 deaths per 100000 live births. These rates remained relatively stagnant between 1984 and 1992 and increased between 1992 and 2004; the most dramatic increase occurred between 1996 and 2004 (14% average annual increase). In contrast, total sudden, unexpected infant death rates remained stagnant between 1996 and 2004, whereas the proportion of deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome declined and to unknown cause increased. Black male infants <4 months of age were disproportionately affected by accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed. Beds, cribs, and couches were reported as places where deaths attributed to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed occurred.

CONCLUSIONS. Infant mortality rates attributable to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed have quadrupled since 1984. The reason for this increase is unknown. Prevention efforts should target those at highest risk and focus on helping parents and caregivers provide safer sleep environments.

 

****************************

The DTaP vaccine was licensed in 1991 and routine use of DTP vaccine was stopped in the US. The ‘back to sleep campaign’ was initiated in 1992. So the downward trend of SIDS rates was attibuted to the ‘back to sleep campaign. But was it really? Which is the real reason? What might the medical establishment be hiding?

In contrast, total sudden, unexpected infant death rates remained stagnant between 1996 and 2004, whereas the proportion of deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome declined and to unknown cause increased.”

That statement sounds like double-speak.  SIDS remained stagnant from 1996-2004, yet unkown causes increased.  Last I knew SIDS is a catch-all for ‘unknown reasons’. 

SIDS is the sudden death of an infant under one year of age which remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history. (Willinger et al, 1991).

If they were to put those now ‘unknown cause’ cases back into the original definition of SIDS, that would mean it HAS increased, not decreased.

If you research back before the mid 1930’s, there was rarely a SIDS case. In 1928 doctors were questioning encephalitis occuring after vaccinations. ( the smallpox vaccine, and experiments with measles, scarlet fever toxins, diphtheria, pertussis and antitoxins, and pneumoococcus.)

Vaccinating teens during menstrual phase may increase adverse reactions

Vaccinating teens during menstrual phase may increase adverse reactions

Why has there not been any mention of the potentially adverse effects of Merck’s cervical cancer vaccination, Gardasil® in relationship to the timing of the inoculation and where a young woman is in her menstrual cycle? This information is especially critical considering the vaccination is recommended for adolescent girls from the age of nine to young women up to 26-years.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON BOTH INDSUTRIES

Gardasil®, as well as other immunizations administered to adolescent women, are dispensed without regard to where a woman is within her menstrual cycle. During Gardasil®’s, clinical trial period, FDA approval, and during the two years it has been on the market, not one article has been written about how a young woman might tolerate the injection during premenstruum; nor is there any information in the Patient Product Information or the Prescribing Information on the Gardasil® web site, that cites any corollary to adverse reactions to the injection in relationship to the menstrual cycle.

Withholding this information is nothing less than a crime against women

Earlier this month the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released report on the number of adverse reactions to Merck Pharmaceutical’s Gardasil® vaccine for cervical cancer. According to the report over 14,796 adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since 2006 when the controversial vaccine for cervical cancer was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and introduced to the mass market. Since the 2006 approval, nearly 8-million adolescent girls and young women have currently received the Gardasil® vaccination.

While Wall Street reported Merck’s 1.5-billion dollar revenue3 windfall from the sale of the Gardasil®, fifteen deaths and two lawsuits are amongst the nearly 8,000 reports, according to the CDC. On August 14, 2008 the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) sent out an email blast with more shocking statistics; there are now 35 confirmed deaths. On July 22, 2008, The Board of Directors of Merck & Co., declared a quarterly dividend of $0.38 per share on the Company’s common stock for the fourth quarter of 2008.

If one does the quick math, it becomes obvious that nearly 10% of the women who received the Gardasil® vaccination experienced an adverse reaction. In our humble opinion, that is an incredibly high percentage. Add that to the number of unknown and unreported incidents of an adverse reaction to Gardasil®, and the percentage could actually be far greater. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the FDA reported in an article in JAMA — June 2,1993, Vol. 269, No.21; “…it is estimated that only between 1-10% of immunization events are reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System;” a figure supported by two NVIC investigations.

NVIC also reported that “In New York, only one out of 40 doctor’s offices or 2.5% confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination” leaving 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities unreported.

The percentage of adverse reactions to Gardasil® could indeed, be significantly higher than researchers have estimated.

ADVERSE REACTIONS

It is possible and probable that some of the adverse reactions to the Gardasil® vaccine are due to the shot being administered during the paramenstrum. It is also possible and probable that some of the adverse reactions to the vaccination may be hormonally related to the premenstrual phase — and not due to the vaccination.

Based on the current research and the unacceptable number of adverse reactions and unexplained fatalities “coincidentally” related to the Gardasil® inoculations, it would behoove Merck Pharmaceuticals to include menstrual cycle evaluation with the overall guidelines in the Gardasil® Patient Product Information and the Prescribing Information. For that matter, every pharmaceutical company producing and marketing drugs to women should also have this information in their product and patient information.

Full Article

N.Y. Sincerity Test

3 part video on a ‘sincerity test’ given to parents in NY by a school lawyer.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

keep in mind..no matter what he or the school decides, it can be over turned (if it is denied) by the NYS commissioner.

Aluminum in Vaccines-A Neurological Gamble

An e-book by Neil Z. Miller on Aluminum

E-book

A Pox Upon You

Are some parents really trying to make their children sick? M&J look at the pros and cons of chicken pox parties.

Video

India clinical trials

Lax and corrupt – Indian Dr assesses clinical trials

 

An Indian doctor has slammed the nation’s clinical trials, claiming they use the vulnerable, the system is corrupt and that the country lacks high quality scientists.

 

The criticisms were made by Dr Amar Jesani in a short-film produced by Dutch non-governmental organisation Wemos. Jesani is a founding member of journals and research centres focused on medical ethics in India and has contributed in government committees on health.

India’s clinical trials came under increasing pressure last year following reports of infant deaths and Jesani’s comments show that some are still deeply uneasy about the current system.

The view held by Jesani, which echoes many who spoke out last year about the infant deaths, is that some drug companies are “compromising science and ethics in the pursuit of profit” and that flaws in the Indian system allow this.

Jesani said: “Unfortunately in my country there are laws but they are not very well implemented so the regulation over the trials, the oversight mechanism, the functioning of the ethics committee and the Drug Controller General of India all of them are so lax that it makes India a big destination for clinical trials.

They don’t have good scientists; they don’t have enough inspectors to go all over the county. The worst thing in every developing country is corruption. There is too much corruption.”

One consequence of this is that clinical trials use the “desperate” and “most vulnerable” members if Indian society, according to Jesani. This alleged exploitation of India’s poor is what Jesani cites as bothering him most about the current system.

Jesani is a founder member of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME), the Centre for Studies in Ethics and Rights (CSER) and the Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT).

The short-film can be viewed here.

Effect of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on Pneumococcal Meningitis

Effect of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on Pneumococcal Meningitis  

ABSTRACT

Background Invasive pneumococcal disease declined among children and adults after the introduction of the pediatric heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) in 2000, but its effect on pneumococcal meningitis is unclear. Methods We examined trends in pneumococcal meningitis from 1998 through 2005 using active, population-based surveillance data from eight sites in the United States. Isolates were grouped into PCV7 serotypes (4, 6B, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F, and 23F), PCV7-related serotypes (6A, 9A, 9L, 9N, 18A, 18B, 18F, 19B, 19C, 23A, and 23B), and non-PCV7 serotypes (all others). Changes in the incidence of pneumococcal meningitis were assessed against baseline values from 1998–1999.

Results We identified 1379 cases of pneumococcal meningitis. The incidence declined from 1.13 cases to 0.79 case per 100,000 persons between 1998–1999 and 2004–2005 (a 30.1% decline, P<0.001). Among persons younger than 2 years of age and those 65 years of age or older, the incidence decreased during the study period by 64.0% and 54.0%, respectively (P<0.001 for both groups). Rates of PCV7-serotype meningitis declined from 0.66 case to 0.18 case (a 73.3% decline, P<0.001) among patients of all ages. Although rates of PCV7-related–serotype disease decreased by 32.1% (P=0.08), rates of non-PCV7–serotype disease increased from 0.32 to 0.51 (an increase of 60.5%, P<0.001). The percentages of cases from non-PCV7 serotypes 19A, 22F, and 35B each increased significantly during the study period. On average, 27.8% of isolates were nonsusceptible to penicillin, but fewer isolates were nonsusceptible to chloramphenicol (5.7%), meropenem (16.6%), and cefotaxime (11.8%). The proportion of penicillin-nonsusceptible isolates decreased between 1998 and 2003 (from 32.0% to 19.4%, P=0.01) but increased between 2003 and 2005 (from 19.4% to 30.1%, P=0.03).

Conclusions Rates of pneumococcal meningitis have decreased among children and adults since PCV7 was introduced. Although the overall effect of the vaccine remains substantial, a recent increase in meningitis caused by non-PCV7 serotypes, including strains nonsusceptible to antibiotics, is a concern.

 

NEJM:

Volume 360:244-256

 

January 15, 2009

Also:

Pediatric Vaccine Effectively Prevents Pneumococcal Meningitis, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2009) — A standard pediatric vaccine used to prevent several common types of life-threatening infections also effectively reduced the rates of another disease, pneumococcal meningitis, in children and adults, according to a multi-center study led by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. The study, published in the Jan. 15 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine and based on a detailed review of pneumococcal meningitis cases, also noted an increase in strains of pneumococcal meningitis not covered by the vaccine and those resistant to antibiotics.

An often deadly disease, pneumococcal meningitis is an infection in the brain and spinal cord membranes caused by the pneumococcus – a bacterium that also causes pneumonia and other serious infections. The highest rates of pneumococcal infections occur in very young children. There are approximately 2,700 cases of pneumococcal meningitis in the U.S. every year.

After reviewing 1,379 cases of pneumococcal meningitis from 1998 through 2005, study authors found rates of the disease decreased in children and adults after the introduction of pediatric pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) in 2000. PCV7 protects against seven of the most common pneumococcal types, which account for over 80 percent of pneumococcal disease in young children. PCV7 is not administered to adults.

According to the study, incidence rates for pneumococcal meningitis in all age groups declined 30.1 percent from 1998-1999 to 2004-2005. After PCV7 was made available, the incidence of meningitis decreased by 64 percent in children and by 54 percent in older adults.

“When you immunize children, they are much less likely to carry pneumococcal strains covered by the vaccine in the back of the throat,” explained Lee Harrison, M.D., senior author of the study and professor of medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “When vaccinated children don’t carry these virulent strains, they don’t end up transmitting them to other children, their parents and grandparents.” Prior to the study, conflicting data existed on the vaccine’s effect on the incidence of meningitis in adults, he said.

The authors also observed that non-PCV7 strains increased by 60.5 percent from the 1998-1999 period to 2004-2005, and the percentage of strains that were not sensitive to penicillin, which initially declined, increased from 19.4 percent in 2003 to 30.1 percent in 2005.

“PCV7 has been highly successful in preventing pneumococcal meningitis, but it remains a very serious and deadly disease,” said Dr. Harrison. “Of the patients in our study, 8 percent of children and 22 percent of adults died. These findings indicate the need to continue to explore new methods of prevention with a special emphasis on strains that are not covered by PCV7 and strains that are drug resistant. Next-generation vaccines are in development and patients and physicians need to avoid unnecessary use of antibiotics.”

In addition to Dr. Harrison, who conducted this study in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, co-authors of the study include first author Heather Hsu, M.P.H. and Kathleen Shutt, both at the University of Pittsburgh; Matthew Moore, M.D., M.P.H., Bernard Beall, Ph.D., and Cynthia Whitney, M.D., M.P.H., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Nancy Bennett, M.D., University of Rochester; Allen Craig, M.D., Tennessee Department of Health; Monica Farley, M.D., Emory University; James Jorgensen, Ph.D., University of Texas Health Sciences Center; Catherine Lexau, Ph.D., M.P.H., Minnesota Department of Health; Susan Petit, M.P.H., Connecticut Department of Health; Arthur Reingold, M.D., University of California Berkeley; William Schaffner, M.D., Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Ann Thomas, M.D., Oregon State Public Health Division.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade

Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade

A new book defending vaccines, written by a doctor infuriated at the claim that they cause autism, is galvanizing a backlash against the antivaccine movement in the United States.

But there will be no book tour for the doctor, Paul A. Offit, author of “Autism’s False Prophets.” He has had too many death threats.

“I’ll speak at a conference, say, to nurses,” he said. “But I wouldn’t go into a bookstore and sign books. It can get nasty. There are parents who really believe that vaccines hurt their children, and to them, I’m incredibly evil. They hate me.”

Dr. Offit, a pediatrician, is a mild, funny and somewhat rumpled 57-year-old. The chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, he is also the co-inventor of a vaccine against rotavirus, a diarrheal disease that kills 60,000 children a year in poor countries. …

More

***********

So now he’s  playing the ‘victim’.  Maybe now he can feel what it’s like to walk in others shoes?  Naw, I doubt it…

Nancy Snyderman: “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)    By J.B. Handley

 

The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea. Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused Chaise’s problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination — not because of the problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC — and a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.”

….The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled, Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).
 
And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report’s criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.

 
People often ask me how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) went from recommending 10 vaccines for children in the mid-1980s to the bursting-at-the-seams 36 vaccine schedule of today. My answer, which always surprises people, is a four-letter acronym: ACIP.
 
ACIP? Most people have never heard of it, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Locked away inside a single page on the CDC website, the ACIP is described as:
 
“15 experts in fields associated with immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. The Committee develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the civilian population; recommendations include age for vaccine administration number of doses and dosing interval, and precautions and contraindications. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. [emphasis added].”
 
The ACIP is a remarkably powerful committee of appointees. Let’s say you’re Merck, a giant pharmaceutical company with vaccines as a primary business line. And, let’s say you have invested several hundred million dollars in developing a vaccine. Just for fun, let’s imagine the vaccine you have developed is for Rotavirus. Let’s say you would like to sell your vaccine to as many people as possible.
 
Well, if you’re Merck, and if you want to sell your new Rotavirus to as many people as possible, you can pass through one door and one door only: the ACIP. If the ACIP approves your vaccine, you can write your ticket. If the ACIP denies your vaccine? Zero. As Congress’ report notes:
 
“The recommendation [by the ACIP] for routine use of a vaccine is tantamount to a Federal mandate for vaccine use.”
 
It’s almost hard to comprehend the amount of pressure pharma would be under to “manage” the ACIP and give their vaccines the best possible chance for approval – there are literally billions of dollars at stake for a single vaccine.
 
Enter Dr. Paul Offit. With Merck’s funding and support, he filed a patent for a Merck-sponsored Rotavirus vaccine on December 9, 1994. Four years later, as his own vaccine was going through trials and no Rotavirus vaccines were YET on the U.S. vaccine schedule, Offit was appointed to the ACIP as a voting member of the committee.
 
Of course, Offit was well aware that a competing vaccine for Rotavirus made by Wyeth was years ahead of his own vaccine and preparing for a presentation to the ACIP in the near future. In fact, he joined the ACIP only three weeks before the committee voted to approve Wyeth’s Rotashield vaccine for the Vaccines for Children program (Offit voted “yes.”). What’s so bad about voting for another company’s vaccine for Rotavirus vaccine when you are developing a competing product? Congress explains:
 
“Members of the ACIP are allowed to vote on a recommendation for one company’s
vaccine even if they have financial ties to a competing firm developing a similar vaccine.
For example, in the case of the rotavirus vaccine, the vaccine before the advisory committee was developed by Wyeth-Lederle. However, Merck and SmithKline29 Beecham had rotavirus vaccines under development. A recommendation for Wyeth- Lederle’s vaccine would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck and SmithKline-Beecham. While ACIP members with ties to Wyeth-Lederle were not allowed to vote on recommendations for the rotavirus vaccine, those with ties to Merck and SmithKline-Beecham were allowed to vote.
 
This stands in stark contrast to the policies of the FDA. In discussions with FDA staff on this specific issue they informed the Committee staff that when the VRBPAC is deliberating the licensure of a vaccine, a company is considered affected [an affected company is one with a direct interest] if they are direct competitors of the manufacturer of the vaccine being considered. They further clarified that that this policy was in place because of the competing interest of the affected company and not because of concerns about the release of proprietary information.”
 
Dr. Paul Offit joined the ACIP three weeks before they voted on a Rotavirus vaccine manufactured by Wyeth to be added to the vaccine schedule. He held a patent on a competing vaccine. 
 
It’s almost incomprehensible, and certainly shows the worst of how pharma games the US Vaccine system. It’s hard to believe, but this story actually gets worse.
 
As we know from above, this initial vaccine that Paul Offit voted to approve was pulled from the market one short year later because of the level of adverse events affecting children. From the report:
 
“A product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”
 
Perhaps worse, and even more shocking, was the timing of the ACIP vote to approve Rotashield:
 
“A particularly troubling aspect of the deliberations on the ‘RotaShield’ vaccine is the sequence of events. The ACIP Committee voted to recommend universal vaccinations of infants before the FDA licensure of the vaccine. Officials of the CDC acknowledged that they knew of no other instance where this has happened.”

 
Wait a minute. They approved the vaccine for universal use in kids before the FDA licensed the product? Why, that stands in rather marked contrast to the reassuring words of Dr. Renee Jenkins, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
 
“The vaccine schedule undergoes vigorous scientific and evidence-based review each year…The vaccine schedule has evolved over the past 50 years based on scientific evidence.”
 
It appears Paul Offit joined the ACIP to ensure he could influence the approval of the Rotavirus vaccine, from which he would later benefit greatly when his own version of rotavirus vaccine was approved. Not surprisingly, Paul Offit voted yes on every action he could relating to the approval of Wyeth’s vaccine. But, when the vaccine was being pulled from the market, Offit abstained:
 
“Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program. Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, ‘I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.'”
 
Approve it? “Yes.” Approve it? “Hell yes!” Approve it? “Absolutely.” It’s hurting a bunch of kids, we need to pull it! “Umm….I have a conflict, gotta go.”
 
Unbelievable.
 
On February 23, 2006 the ACIP voted to add Paul Offit’s vaccine, Rotateq, to the U.S. Immunization schedule. As we all know, Dr. Offit has conceded this vaccine “made him rich.” An analyst for Merck notes, “At a cost of $187.50 for the three-dose series, RotaTeq is one of the most expensive vaccines to date; by 2009, the company forecasts that the vaccine could bring in as much as $500 million in annual revenue.”
 
In May 2008, it was reported that, “Later in 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were 117 confirmed cases of intussusception among recipients of Rotateq between March 2006 and June 2007.”

Also, in 2008 it was reported that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an update to the product label for Merck & Co.’s Rotateq vaccine to include the report of a death of a recipient due to an intestinal obstruction.”
In 2008, Medical Science Monitor published a study critical of Paul Offit’s vaccine (HERE).
 
It stated: “This study found that, after a significant decline in intussusception adverse events entered into VAERS after the withdrawal of RotaShield, the previous rotavirus vaccine, a significant, rapid increase in intussusception adverse-event reports was observed after the licensing of RotaTeq, the current rotavirus vaccine, on February 3, 2006… From February 3, 2006 through July 31, 2007, a total of 160 (of the 165 reported) intussusception and 11 (of the 16 reported) Kawasaki disease adverse event reports were identified when RotaTeq was administered or co-administered with other vaccines. Time-trend analyses showed that there were significant increases in the total number of intussusception and Kawasaki disease adverse events entered into VAERS in comparison to previous years.”
 
And the study concluded:
 
“Based on the preceding realities, it would seem that the ACIP recommendations for the universal use of RotaTeq were, at best, premature and unwarranted. It is important that healthcare providers continue to report adverse events that occur following RotaTeq vaccine so that more information may be gleaned about its safety profi le, and those patients that may have experienced an adverse effect of RotaTeq vaccination should be advised that they may be eligible for compensation from the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
 
The acceptance of RotaTeq vaccination for the US market may be significantly limited by its apparent lack of economic savings, and given the fact that it may alter disease patterns of intussusception/ Kawasaki disease, so that they occur with greater frequency among segments of the population that previously had only limited experience with such conditions. Moreover, if the serious adverse events being reported following vaccination with RotaTeq are indeed vaccine related, then, like the previous rotavirus RotaShield, RotaTeq should be immediately withdrawn from the US market.”

 
As of January 2009, Rotateq remains on the market.

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reports today that the British government was desperately trying to prevent secret files on the proven dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine from being released publicly under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws.  In a recent case they have been forced to open the files up to scrutiny:-

And here is some of what will be discovered.

British Government’s Reckless Disregard for Child Health Safety

The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR was introduced and used on British Children in 1988

  • the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”
  • Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children
  • the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence
     

  • Pluserix/Trivirx are the identical vaccine manufactured in the identical Smith Kline factory in Belgium and with the exact same component parts and constituents
     

  • despite the Canadian position and contemporaneously with the final withdrawal of Pluserix/Trivirix in Canada the UK signed the contract to purchase Pluserix MMR from Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited in July 1988, even though it was known by then to be too dangerous for use on our children
     

  • SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate
     

  • the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time
     

  • there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable
     

  • similar problems were experienced in Japan with the Japanese MMR vaccine which, in common with Pluserxi/Trivirix, contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus
     

  • the Japanese MMR was also withdrawn by 1992 on safety grounds having caused high levels of adverse reactions
     

  • the British government continued the licence for Pluserix MMR after 1992, which enabled it to be supplied overseas
     

  • even today, because it is cheaper than safer alternatives, organisations like UNICEF continue supplying urabe strain containing MMR vaccine to the more adverse reaction vulnerable and less well nourished third world children
     

  • since 1998, statistical paper after paper has been published in a blaze of publicity, claiming no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, but when all the noise has died down, on subsequent careful examination, each one has been found to be flawed
     

  • other than the Royal Free’s paper, no clinical studies of the MMR child litigants were undertaken or published
     

  • after being put under financial pressure by the British Government, in 2005 the Oxford based Cochrane Collaboration published a systematic review of all prior papers and its authors claimed to conclude the MMR vaccine was safe:-
       

    • it was shown the authors had violated the standards of evidence-based medicine and
    • their conclusions were not supported by the body of the review
    • and it later was discovered that the British Department of Health had increased the funding for Cochrane’s Oxford administration by £1 million per annum and extended the contracts of its British groups.

 

 

Autism Explosion Followed Big Change in MMR Shot

Olmsted on Autism: Autism Explosion Followed Big Change in MMR Shot

By Dan Olmsted

In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units. Neither the measles nor the rubella (German measles) component of the MMR was changed at all — each remained at 1,000 units throughout.
 
Merck also makes the single-component mumps shot, and in 1990 it also increased the potency of that shot by the same amount, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. But unlike the MMR shot, the standalone mumps shot’s potency was not scaled back in 2007. It remains at 20,000 units.
 
These changes were mentioned in passing recently during an informal conversation with a Merck scientist. I started looking for an explanation for the sequence of events, but Merck did not respond to a detailed written request for comment.
 
Absent such an explanation, simple logic dictates the reduction had something to do with the MMR in particular rather than the mumps vaccine in isolation. But what? And what about the timing — the increase in 1990 and the decrease in 2007?

 
The huge rise in autism cases began about the time the mumps component in the MMR was raised in 1990. One theory, dismissed by Merck and federal public health officials, is that viral interference between the components in the MMR could create a persistent sub-clinical measles infection in a subset of vulnerable children; and because the measles virus can cause brain damage, that could lead to autism.
 
A study released last week by the M.I.N.D. Institute at UC Davis reported that most of the fivefold increase in full-syndrome autism — from 9 in 10,000 children in 1990 to 44 in 10,000 children in 2000– is real and cannot be accounted for by broader categories or diagnostic substitution. And from 1990 to 2007, the mumps portion of the MMR was higher by roughly the same amount — quadruple.
 
Merck’s decision to cut back on the increase in the mumps vaccine also is surrounded by interesting timing.  The cutback, in 2007, came at the same time Merck announced it was suspending its recently introduced, much-hyped four-in-one shot, ProQuad — the MMR with the chickenpox vaccine added to it. In suspending ProQuad, Merck cited a shortage of chickenpox vaccine; subsequently, a study showed ProQuad caused twice as many fever-induced seizures as separate MMR and chickenpox shots given at the same time, and a CDC advisory committee withdrew its preferential recommendation of the vaccine. Merck won’t say when ProQuad will return to the market.
 
An investigation I conducted while at UPI in 2006 found two cases of regressive autism in one small city — Olympia, Wash. — in clinical trials leading up to approval of the vaccine. Merck said the parents originally failed to report those cases to it (though the pediatricians paid to conduct the studies for Merck certainly knew about them and would have been expected to report them); the company alerted the FDA only after my inquiry.

The Merck scientist I spoke with recently also acknowledged that viral interference can affect the potency of individual MMR ingredients; that explains why the company added a whopping dose of chickenpox vaccine to the ProQuad shot, several times more than the standalone chickenpox vaccine contains. Using the same amount of chickenpox vaccine in the MMR shot as the standalone vaccine simply wouldn’t have protected children against the disease, because more virus was needed to offset the interference from the other components.
 
A significant number of parents of children with regressive autism cite the MMR as the proximate cause — they say their child was developing normally until the shot, then in many cases had a serious physical reaction within a short period of time and began losing developmental milestone and showing typical signs of the disorder. Some also developed severe gastrointestinal problems, an ailment first described in cases of regressive autism following the MMR shot by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in Britain in 1998; he named it autistic enterocolitis and found measles RNA in the children’s GI tract, suggesting persistent infection.
 
In looking at whether the increase in mumps potency in 1990 could buttress this theory of the autism epidemic, two questions arise: Is there evidence that increasing the mumps portion of the MMR could have any impact on measles infectivity or create symptoms consistent with those described by Wakefield and parents? And, could ProQuad’s higher rate of measles rash and fever-induced seizures be a warning sign that something is amiss with the MMR itself, especially beginning in 1990 when Merck tinkered with the proportions of the components?
 
The answers seem to be, yes and yes.
 
In the real world, children rarely get two viral illnesses at once — for instance, chickenpox and rubella. But when they do, viruses tend to interact — or interfere — with each other in unpredictable and synergistic ways. One example: Studies in the UK and Iceland showed that when mumps AND measles epidemics hit these populations in the same year, the risk of inflammatory bowel disease spiked. That’s an epidemiological argument for immune interference, and a striking fit with the observations by Wakefield, and thousand of parents, that a similar condition occurs in many children with regressive autism after they get the measles-mumps-rubella shot.
 
A related finding comes from a study funded by Merck.  In 2005, the study reported that the four-in-one ProQuad shot — the MMR and chickenpox — was “generally well tolerated” and had a safety profile similar to the MMR and the chickenpox shot (also made by Merck and called Varivax) when given separately.
 
But there were a couple of interesting differences. First, “Measles-like rash and fever during days 5-12 were more common after the first dose of MMRV [ProQuad]” than after the MMR and Varivax given separately. The difference was substantial — 5.9 percent who got the MMRV had the rash and 27.7 percent had fever, compared to 1.9 percent with rash and 18.7 fever after getting separate shots. While that did not alarm the researchers, it could be a foreshadowing of the doubled rate of fever-induced seizures that was spotted after ProQuad was approved.
 
Second, even though the new element in ProQuad was the chickenpox portion, something new and unexpected was also going on with the mumps and measles components. “Geometric mean titers to measles and mumps were significantly higher after 1 dose of MMRV than after administration” of MMR and Varivax separately, according to the study’s summary. Later, the authors state: “This suggests that the measles and mumps virus replication is greater after MMRV than it is” after the MMR and Varivax given separately.
 
In non-scientific language, it looks like the addition of another live virus — chickenpox — potentiated the measles and mumps components: It kicked both viruses into higher gear and they replicated at rates higher than in the MMR. At the same time, the researchers observed a greater incidence of measles-like rash, and fever, in those who got ProQuad. Were the increased measles and mumps viruses interacting in some unexpected and potentially dangerous way?
 
Then, for whatever reason, sometime between February and December of last year Merck reduced the mumps component of the MMR from 20,000 units to 12,500 while leaving the standalone mumps shot as it was. During that same period, it decided to suspend production of ProQuad. In April 2007, it announced the suspension, and said no more would be available after July. Then in early 2008, Merck’s study showing the doubled risk of seizures in ProQuad was unveiled and the CDC withdrew its recommendation.
 
And just last month, Merck said it would stop making the individual MMR component shots including, of course, the mumps shot. That leaves the MMR as the only vaccine in town, and it means there will no longer be a mumps vaccine formulation on the market with the dose the MMR contained from 1990 to 2007.
 
None of this might matter if not for the fact that measles is capable of causing cause catastrophic brain damage and death; that’s an argument for the measles vaccine. In medical parlance, it’s a neurotoxic virus.
 
“The invasion of the CNS [central nervous system] by MV [measles virus] is apparently not an uncommon event, as reflected by the finding of genomic sequences in normal autopsy cases and the widespread distribution of MV in in neurons, glial cells and vascular endothelial cells of the diseased brain,” according to “Measles Virus Infections of the Central Nervous System” by Uwe G. Liebert of the University of Leipzeig, Germany, published in Intervirology in 1997. “The susceptibility of the host as well as his age and immune status at the time of infection constitutes significant factors for disease progression.”
 
Merck acknowledges the three viruses can indeed interact to affect a child’s immune system, although in ways it says are not harmful.
 
A Merck scientist publicly discussed the interference issue at a CDC meeting in 2004, the year before ProQuad was approved, according to agency minutes. Dr. Florian Schodel “confirmed the possibility that the chickenpox virus component of ProQuad was causing a local immune suppression and an increase in measles virus replication. … The current hypothesis is that the varicella and measles virus are co-infecting the same or proximate areas of the body and engaging in a specific interaction, but how that works is as yet unknown.
 
“He said the interference appeared to involve only the chickenpox and measles viruses – ‘there is no such effect for the mumps or rubella vaccines administered locally at the same time.'”
 
Yet based on Merck’s own 2005 study cited above, ProQuad triggers an increase in mumps virus replication, too. Live viruses in ProQuad seem to be behaving in ways “as yet unknown” that cause immune suppression, co-infection, interaction and increased replication. Even without ProQuad on the market, interaction between the MMR components and the chickenpox virus remains a possibility. The CDC started recommending the chickenpox shot in the mid-1990s at the same 12-month well-baby visit as the MMR. 
 
That suggests the pattern highlighted by ProQuad could be at work through the increased mumps component of the MMR and the addition of chickenpox to the childhood immunization schedule in the mid-1990s. The lesson could be that combining live viruses, and then increasing them or adding new ones, is inherently dangerous, especially when invasion of the brain by one of them “is not an uncommon event.”
 
As Andy Wakefield told me when I was working on the series in Olympia describing the children in the ProQuad clinical trials who became ill after the vaccination and subsequently regressed into autism: “It’s actually heartbreaking, listening to these parents, for more than just the immediate reasons their child has met this fate. It’s that you’re staring into an abyss,” Wakefield said. “You’re listening to stories which reflect the fundamental misconception of vaccine manufacturers of what viruses are and what they do.”
 
Two additional points worth noting: After the increase in 1990 and decrease in 2007, there is still more than twice as much mumps virus in the MMR as there was in 1990.
 
The changes in the mumps virus component of the MMR serves as a potent reminder of something else: MMR is not one thing but three different exposures. And over the period 1980-2009 the MMR has changed significantly at least twice, making epidemiological studies even more difficult to interpret.

Tamiflu found to be 99% ineffective against primary flu strain

Tamiflu found to be 99% ineffective against primary flu strain

 

Following up on an initial report last month, The New York Times now says that Tamiflu is 99% of all flu strains 99% ineffective against the dominant flu strain that will strike Americans this season.

Scientists and health officials do not know why. Last winter, roughly 11% of common flu strains patients with the most common flu strain resisted showed resistance to Tamiflu, the leading antiviral drug.

No resistance to Tamiflu has been identified among other circulating viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Roche, the manufacturer.

“It’s quite shocking,” Dr. Kent A. Sepkowitz, director of infection control at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, told the Times. “We’ve never lost an antimicrobial this fast. It blew me away.”

So far, it’s not a public-health problem. Officials cite two reasons: the flu season has been below average, and the main strain is susceptible to other antivirals.

January and February are peak months for influenza.

Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that the CDC had alerted doctors about Tamiflu’s apparent ineffectiveness and urged them to prescribe an additional drug.

The Food and Drug Administration has more information about Tamiflu.

WebMD, citing the CDC, reports the first flu-related death of a child this season.

 

Correction: In hastily summarizing the Times article, the effectiveness of Tamiflu was misstated. The headline and text have been corrected. Apologies to all. It’s another reminder of how moving at Internet speed can sometimes kill comprehension…

Course shows companies what NOT to put in writing

Course shows companies what NOT to put in writing

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Want to avoid those embarrassing internal emails containing concerns that an important product may be harmful, or documents that could attract the attention of an ambitious prosecutor?

The Medical Technology Learning Institute and Compliance-Alliance is offering: “Dangerous Documents: Avoiding Land Mines in Your FDA Records and Emails” — a course tailor-made for the drug industry and medical device company executive anxious to cut down on pesky multimillion-dollar legal settlements.

Dangerous Documents offers such helpful tips as: Instead of writing, “We’ll meet on Thursday to destroy the documents,” it’s better to say, “We’ll meet on Thursday to implement our document retention policy.”

The course is the brain child of Compliance-Alliance founder Nancy Singer, a former U.S. prosecutor who did litigation for the Food and Drug Administration.

Singer is using her expertise to educate company officials on how to write internal and external communications that do not contain potential “landmines,” which she describes as anything that “if it’s uncovered, it explodes.”

“Documents are like diamonds,” she is fond of saying. “They are very precious and they last forever.”

The Compliance-Alliance mission statement says the course will present “the latest thinking on what it takes to achieve and maintain compliance with FDA and CMS requirements.”

However, there appears to be more here than instruction on how to be an upstanding corporate citizen and keep government agencies happy. The course agenda reads more like a primer on how to avoid raising red flags with the regulatory police or the suspicion of prosecutors and product liability lawyers.

Some of the more eye catching topics listed in the program for the $995 course include:

* Who can be held criminally liable under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

* 18 words that will attract the attention of prosecutors or plaintiffs’ lawyers

* 8 common practices that are sure to get you in trouble

* The dangers in not monitoring employee emails

Singer insists this is not about how to bury negative data or avoid getting caught for nefarious practices.

“I want to educate all employees on the ramifications of how inappropriate statements can be used,” Singer said.

Indeed, in every personal injury trial in which Merck & Co defended its handling of the withdrawn pain drug Vioxx, plaintiffs’ lawyers dredged up internal Merck memos that questioned company interpretations of clinical safety data. Despite winning most of those trials, Merck finally agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement….

Never use words like illegal or negligent when you can instead say, “It could be argued that that doesn’t comply with requirements” or “perhaps we haven’t been as careful as we should be,” Singer said.

Among the pitfalls Singer discusses is what she calls the CYA (Cover Your Ass) memo, in which an employee puts concerns in writing for the files to show he or she raised the issue….

If the employee gets subpoenaed in a product liability case the CYA memo will be used against the company, Singer says, “and it’s not going to protect you from the government.”

Another common misconception, Singer says, is the belief that putting “confidential” or “internal use only” on a memo will keep it out of the hands of investigators or government agencies.

“Writing ‘confidential’ doesn’t mean anything.”

Full article

New Autism Study Conducted by Boobs?

New Autism Study Conducted by Boobs?

Age of Autism Blog:

A study reports that men with autistic children do not prefer curvier women like most “normal” men.  So is it Dad’s fault for chasing down Olive Oyl or Mom’s fault for resembling a pipe cleaner (in my case, a Q-tip, thanks to the tangle of hair.) Holy Donut Holes! I knew I should have eaten more crullers in college…. You men can thank me for finding a way to get her (jerking head to thataway) on A of A. Send a donation. ;)

Someone spent money on this study.(Quick, check Autism Speaks’ grants list and get back to me, won’t you?)  KS

Men who do not find the shape of the curvier woman most attractive could be more likely to father children with autism, according to a study.

Researchers showed 100 men with autistic children pictures of curvy women, women with athletic frames and more rounded women and found that they do not have a preference on which figure they find more attractive.

The new research from the University of Bath suggests that fathers of autistic children do not share the preference of men across the world for the curvier woman.

 

The study: “A Preliminary Investigation into the Potential Role of Waist Hip Ratio (WHR) Preference within the Assortative Mating Hypothesis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

Brosnan M, Walker I.  J Autism Dev Disord. 2009 Jan;39(1):164-71. Epub 2008 Jul 4.

“Of particular interest to studying the etiology of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) is the potential for multiple risk factors to combine through non-random mechanisms-assortative mating. Both genetic influences and a high-testosterone prenatal environment have been implicated in the etiology of ASDs, and given that waist-hip ratio (WHR) is indicative of a woman’s circulating testosterone level, a man attracted to higher-than-average WHR women is likely to have a higher-than-average prenatal testosterone exposure for their offspring. We show that whereas fathers of children without ASD show a statistically reliable preference for WHRs at the low end of the normal range, indicative of women with low testosterone levels, fathers of children diagnosed with ASD do not consistently show this preference.”

Taking Shots

Taking Shots

 

 

LISTEN TO “Taking Shots” (24MB MP3)

 

Whether or not vaccines pose a risk to infants and small children has been called one of the great debates of this decade. Some claim that there is a connection between vaccines and the rising rate of autism in the U.S., while others argue that vaccines are not only safe but vital to keeping kids healthy.

Oregon requires children to be vaccinated against 11 different diseases in order to attend school, but the state does allow for exemptions. These are technically religious exemptions, but religion is defined broadly as “any system of beliefs, practices or ethical values.” The exemption rate is 4.1 percent statewide but Ashland has recently drawn national attention for their unusually high rate of vaccine exemptions. More than 28 percent of kindergartners there were not vaccinated in 2007. That’s why the Centers for Disease Control will be hosting a public meeting in this southern Oregon city on Saturday to listen to parents’ concerns and gather information for a vaccine safety study.

Are you a parent? How did you decide whether or not to vaccinate your children? Were you vaccinated as a child? How has your experience informed your medical choices? With the preponderance of the medical community in favor of vaccines, but with access to plenty of anti-vaccine information, how do you decide who you can trust?

GUESTS:

 

New Type of Vaccine Delivers Enhanced Immune Response

New Type of Vaccine Delivers Enhanced Immune Response

A new vaccine platform that could bring fundamental changes to vaccine technology is being developed by scientists at the University of Copenhagen. Known as the InVacc platform, it improves upon original DNA vaccines and creates new vaccines with enhanced properties.

The platform consists of a chain of amino acids attached to a gene of the virus being vaccinated against. This “genetic cocktail” is inserted into an appropriate expression vehicle, such as an incapacitated adenovirus, and injected into the body, triggering a broad and aggressive immune response. The chain of 215 amino acids and its insertion into the adenovirus represent the key innovations of this technique.

To date, tests of the vaccine look promising. Researchers were able to provide 100% protection against various lethal strains of flu given to mice. The next phase of development and, ultimately, clinical trials are being planned.

Associate professor Jan Pravsgaard explained, “The platform has proved very effective in our recent tests and could have enormous potential. In principle, vaccines of this type could be used to inoculate against a range of deadly viruses, bacteria, and other diseasecausing agents and even be used to cure certain cancers once they take hold.”

source: Dec. 2008 issue of Ajho

Kawasaki’s disease, acrodynia, and mercury.

Kawasaki’s disease, acrodynia, and mercury. 

PMID: 19075648

A superantigen or autoimmunity has been hypothesized to be the main cause of the Kawasaki’s Disease but the etiology is unknown. Medical literature, epidemiological findings, and some case reports have suggested that mercury may play a pathogenic role. Several patients with Kawasaki’s Disease have presented with elevated urine mercury levels compared to matched controls. Most symptoms and diagnostic criteria which are seen in children with acrodynia, known to be caused by mercury, are similar to those seen in Kawasaki’s Disease. Genetic depletion of glutathione S-transferase , a susceptibility marker for Kawasaki’s Disease, is known to be also a risk factor for acrodynia and may also increase susceptibility to mercury . Coinciding with the largest increase (1985-1990) of thimerosal (49.6% ethyl mercury) in vaccines, routinely given to infants in the U.S. by 6 months of age (from 75microg to 187.5microg), the rates of Kawasaki’s Disease increased ten times, and, later (1985-1997), by 20 times. Since 1990 88 cases of patients developing Kawasaki’s Disease some days after vaccination have been reported to the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) including 19% manifesting symptoms the same day. The presented pathogenetic model may lead to new preventive- and therapeutic strategies for Kawasaki’s disease.

Bayer Knowingly Sold HIV-Contaminated Vaccines, Say Internal Documents

Bayer Knowingly Sold HIV-Contaminated Vaccines, Say Internal Documents

 

Here’s a little-known truth about Bayer that needs to be revisited. In 2006, it was discovered that Bayer found out a vaccine it was selling in the United States was accidentally contaminated with HIV.

In order to cover its tracks, say the journalists in this video (below), Bayer pulled the vaccines off the market and sold them to consumers in Japan, France, Spain and other countries, where hemophiliacs were then contaminated with HIV due to the vaccine.

Continued

The Vaccine Hard Sell at Pediatrics

The Vaccine Hard Sell at Pediatrics-Age of Autism

A Shot of Reality
By Michael Wagnitz, B.S.
 
As a chemist with 27 years of experience evaluating material for heavy metals, I find it unfortunate that the journal Pediatrics has allowed Dr. Paul Offit to repeat misinformation  regarding the use of neurotoxic metals in vaccines. He scolds Dr. Bob Sears for not giving the proper scientific credit to the paper, “Weight of Evidence Against Thimerosal Causing Neuropsychological Deficits” (1), published in the NEJM.  Let’s take a look at the quality of this paper starting with the impartiality of the authors:

Dr. Thompson – the lead investigator – is a former employee of Merck.

Dr. Marcy has received consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune.

Dr. Jackson received grant money from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He received lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott. Currently, he is a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Dr. Lieu is a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Dr. Black receives consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck, and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis.

Dr. Davis receives consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

(The above information was included in the fine print of the published article)

The article states that any child with a preexisting neurological condition was eliminated from the study. Isn’t this what the study was supposed to examine, whether thimerosal causes neurological damage? These preexisting conditions included encephalitis and meningitis. The possibility that thimerosal might cause these conditions was eliminated from consideration.
 
Children were eliminated for other reasons from the study. One group excluded was children whose birth weight was under 2,500 grams, or 5.5 pounds. The number of  babies eliminated because of this was not reported. Babies of this weight are not rare and they are not excluded from any  vaccine. In fact, in a study published last year in Pediatrics, it was shown that low weight babies had a much higher rate of autism (2). In the end, only about 30% of the original study participants remained. The authors seemed to weed out anyone who didn’t fit their desired conclusion. Offit says (and I quote), “It is hard to imagine a better conceived, better designed study on the subtle effects of mercury poisoning”. No Offit, it’s hard to imagine a better conceived and better designed study to obfuscate the issue concerning the safety of thimerosal.

Offit tells us how aluminum in babies formula and breast milk dwarfs the amount in vaccines. What he doesn’t explain is that aluminum is only dangerous once it’s in the bloodstream. Aluminum is not absorbed through the gut. It is 100% absorbed through vaccination. He ignores the paper published in 2007 linking aluminum in vaccines to Gulf War Syndrome (3) . If it can harm healthy, adult, combat ready soldiers, at a lower dose per body weight, what is it doing to newborns?

Here is one subject Offit never touches; multi-dose vaccine vials, including current versions of the flu, tetanus and meningococcal vaccines, contain 50,000 ug/l of Hg, a level 250 times higher than what the EPA classifies as hazardous waste (4). All these vaccines are recommended for children. Primates exposed to injected ethylmercury from vaccines, as opposed to equal doses of ingested methylmercury, end up with twice as much Hg++ deposited in the brain (5). This form remains permanently trapped and has been identified as the primary toxic agent in degenerative brain diseases (6). State of the art research has shown us that autism is a degenerative brain disease (7).

Parents understand the difference between truthful information from honest, caring professionals like Dr. Bob Sears and the aggressive, bullying tactics that Offit and others are trying to sell them. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.

Full Article

What is Paul Offit’s Problem?

What is Paul Offit’s Problem?

 

By Anne Dachel-Age of Autism

 

…Offit’s article, The Problem With Dr Bob’s Alternative Vaccine Schedule, (HERE) led to a response from Dr. Sears (HERE) that is running on his website.  I hope readers will take the time to read both pieces to understand first-hand what was said by each of the doctors.

Blog Article here

 

The Problem With Dr Bob’s Alternative Vaccine Schedule

(Paul A. Offit, MDa,b and Charlotte A. Moser, BSa)

A Response to Dr. Offit’s Misleading and Inaccurate Review of The Vaccine Book in Pediatrics, January 2009
(Dr Sears)

 

*************

 

My personal view, they are both in the wrong.

 

Offit  chooses to dismiss the bad science,  cherry-picks his information as well to suit his own agenda and wallet, and believes in ‘survival of the fittest’ no matter what the cost to the children involved.

 

Sears portrayed the good and the bad in a poorly written ‘cut and paste’ type of way.  Having read his book, there was plenty of misinformation to be read.  Maybe I will point those areas out sometime:) Other than the delay or selective schedule that some parents may opt to do, there was nothing about his book I found informative. Why? Because anyone could have found the package inserts, CDC information, and other basic information  with a simple search on the internet, for FREE.

 

 

I do applaud Sears for standing up for himself. Why Offit felt the need to dis his book is beyond me.  You would think he would be pleased that some parents would at least consider some vaccines versus none at all. Could it be because his own has own book flopped so badly? Or was it his own way of making himself  ‘look better’,  or ‘puffing himself up’ by knocking somone else down,  given the negativity that surrounds himself that he caused himself? 

 

Maybe,  just maybe,  his words are a mirror to his soul and God help us all…

MSG and Autism

MSG and Autism

 By John Erb-Age of Autism

 

….This experience twenty years ago shaped my view of Autism and the direction of the research journey I have taken.  In 2003 I finally put my ideas to paper.  In the book called The Slow Poisoning of America, I theorized that something was actually causing the brains of those with ASD to grow too much.  The culprit:  Monosodium Glutamate. Introduced to the America diet in 1950 it is an amino acid added to food to make it taste better and to vaccines to stabilize the active ingredients.  At the time I published this idea I had little scientific evidence to support it, more of a “hunch” than hard core science.  But over the last 5 years I have gathered enough published medical studies to validate a highly probable link between this excitotoxin and the Autism epidemic.

 

Suddenly the pieces of the puzzle began to take shape.  The studies I had gathered that showed people with ASD had larger brains and the ones that revealed an odd difference in white and gray brain matter made sense when glutamate was considered.  The main reason mercury has been pushed has been due to the abnormal deposits of it found in people with Autism.  But in studies mercury has always been shown to reduce the growth of the brain, not increase it.  Carol Hornlien, food scientist and creator of www.msgtruth.com revealed the reason:  High levels of MSG reduces the liver’s production of Cysteine.  This leads to a reduction in Glutathione which aids in the removal of heavy metals in the body.  With less Glutathione, the metals collect in the body.  High Mercury would then be a symptom of Autism, and not the cause. 

In spite of the lack of funding to explore the connection, recent studies have supported the possibility. Page and Daly et al in 2006 concluded that “Abnormalities in glutamate/glutamine may partially underpin the pathophysiology of autistic spectrum disorders.   Shinohe, Hashimoto et al in 2007 determined that their “study suggests that an abnormality in glutamatergic neurotransmission may play a role in the pathophysiology of autism.   Even in 2001 Glutamate was being scientifically connected with Autism.  Purcell, Jeon et al. concluded that “subjects with autism may have specific abnormalities in the AMPA-type glutamate receptors and glutamate transporters in the cerebellum. These abnormalities may be directly involved in the pathogenesis of the disorder.”

Read Full Blog Here

Diphtheria

Diphtheria is an upper respiratory tract illness characterized by sore throat, low fever, and an adherent membrane (called a pseudomembrane) on the tonsils, pharynx, and/or nasal cavity.  Diphtheria toxin produced by C. diphtheriae, can cause myocarditis, polyneuritis, and other systemic toxic effects. A milder form of diphtheria can be restricted to the skin.

 

Nature of Diphtheria:

 

Diphtheria is a disease of the throat, nose, or trachea, caused by a germ called the Klebs-Löffler bacillus. The bacilli produce a white or yellow membrane which is usually plainly visible when it is on the tonsils and surrounding parts, but it may be so thin that it can scarcely be noticeable. If it is in the nose or trachea, its location prevents it from being seen. Other bacteria often grow with the diphtheria bacilli and produce swellings and abscesses. The disease will usually develop within a few hours or days after infection with the germs.

 

 

Recognition of Diphtheria

There are two methods of recognizing diphtheria: 1, by looking into the throat for a membrane; and 2, by taking a culture from the throat or nose.

When a doctor is called to see a sick child, the invariable rule ought to be that he look into the child’s throat. Doctors sometimes yield to the desires of the child or of its parents and do not examine the throat, and thus they often fail to recognize diphtheria in its early stages while it may readily be cured. The presence of spots or a membrane on the tonsils or other situation in the back part of the throat is strongly suggestive of diphtheria, but it is not always a proof of the disease, for they may be due to other causes, such as simple tonsillitis, or septic sore throat, or Vincent’s angina.

Cultures.—The only sure indication of diphtheria is to find diphtheria bacilli in a culture from the throat or nose.

 

Carriers.Diphtheria germs may grow in the throat without producing sickness. They usually disappear from the throat in about two weeks after a person recovers from diphtheria. If they persist for three weeks or more, the person is classed as a carrier.

Carriers harbor the bacilli in situations to which the blood-serum is unable to penetrate. The bacilli have been found among the epithelial cells of the tonsils. They may also grow in the crypts of the tonsils and in folds of the mucous membrane of the nose. An abnormal condition of the nose or throat can be seen in nearly every diphtheria carrier, and the germs persist because of the abnormality.

 

 

A diphtheria carrier can give the disease to another person. Most cases of diphtheria are caught from unrecognized and unsuspected carriers.

Virulence Test.—Diphtheria bacilli vary in their virulence and in their ability to produce toxin. If a variety has only a slight virulence, it cannot produce the disease in another person, and the carrier is harmless.

A virulence test is performed in the following manner: A culture is taken from a carrier, and the diphtheria germs are isolated from it in a pure culture. A small quantity of the germs are taken and killed and are then injected into the skin of a normal guinea-pig. If the bacilli are virulent, they will produce a red, sore spot in three or four days. The test is like the Schick test on human beings. Laboratories of departments of health are now prepared to make virulence tests on cultures from carriers.

 

Treatment of Carriers.—A healthy nose or throat will seldom harbor diphtheria bacilli. The procedures which are of value in ridding a carrier of the bacilli are those which would tend to restore the throat to a normal state if no diphtheria germs were present. Most carriers have enlarged tonsils. The removal of the tonsils and adenoids from the throats of those who have them is almost certain to rid a carrier of the germs. Nearly every diphtheria carrier is immune. If he were not immune he would have the disease in an active form. The administration of antitoxin, therefore, has no effect on the bacilli in their throats.

 

Routine Diphtheria tests were stopped because the majority of people were positive for Diphtheria in the throat and the skin.

Diphtheria infections are further complicated by the toxigenicity factor. If one is infected with a toxigenic strain of C. diphtheriae, two factors must be present to cause the production of the Diphtheria toxin:

  • 1. Low extracellular concentrations of inorganic iron. In the presence of iron, a repressor molecule, coded for by the diphtheria toxin repressor (DtxR) gene, is activated by iron and prevents transcription of the tox gene. When concentrations of iron drop, the repressor molecule is inactivated and transcription of the tox gene proceeds, resulting in production of diphtheria toxin.[11]
  • 2. Presence in the bacterial chromosome of a lysogenic prophage which contains the tox gene. The bacterium originally receives the tox gene from a specific Beta-phage.[11]

Diphtheria Toxin is a bacterial exotoxin which consists of an active (A) domain, and a binding (B) domain. The toxin acts by binding to the HB-EGF receptor on cells and enters by receptor-mediated endocytosis. The acidic environment of the endosome causes the toxin to undergo a conformational change which causes part of the A domain to enter the endosomal membrane. The A domain is then cleaved from the B domain and passes through the membrane into the cell cytoplasm. The A domain then catalyzes the transfer of ADP-ribose from NAD to Elongation Factor II (EF2), a key protein in protein synthesis during translation. With the addition of ADP-ribose to EF2, EF2 is deactivated. Once a significant amount of EF2 proteins have been deactivated, the cell death occurs.[11]

 

Diagnosis and Treatment

Clinically, the disease is described as: “An upper-respiratory tract illness characterized by sore throat, low-grade fever, and an adherent membrane of the tonsils, pharynx, and/or nose” [3]

If diphtheria is suspected, then a sample of the bacteria is isolated from the patient and cultured, and toxigenicity testing is performed. If the bacteria is C. diphtheriae, the substrain is further identified – intermedius, mitis, and gravis. To test for toxigenicity, the Elek test is performed. The CDC can also perform a PCR test, but it is not typically used when forming a diagnosis. Another test is serologic testing, which determines the level of antibodies to the diphtheria toxin. [3]

Diphtheria is treated with diphtheria antitoxin, and a 14-day course of antibiotics, preferably Erythromycin or Penicillin.

 

Is it Diphtheria or something else?  

The Acute Infectious Diseases Of Childhood. Diphtheria

This is a disease of the throat. It is caused by the germ that causes diphtheria, that is, by the Bacillus diphtherae. There is no doubt about this. In fact so certain are medical men that this germ causes the trouble that when they fail to find the germ in the excretions (“Bacteriological examination is necessary for diagnosis since some cases cannot be told on inspection alone from acute tonsilitis, and other cases have no membrane at all”Emerson, Essentials of Medicine), they name the disease something else. The disease may present a perfect clinical picture of diphtheria and no germ be present. This is pseudo-diphtheria and receives another name. One may only have ordinary tonsilitis, “sore throat,” and, if the germ is found, it becomes diphtheria. It was adding thousands of cases of this latter type to the diphtheria figures that enabled them to show a 100% increase in the diphtheria case rate and a corresponding nearly 50% decrease in the death rate, without any lessening of the actual number of deaths, but often with an increase in deaths, when diphtheria antitoxin came into use. The supposed diphtheria germ is often found in the mouth and throat of healthy people who do not have, have not had, and do not subsequently develop diphtheria.

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us: “If, in diphtheria, the bacillus is not found, the illness is renamed something else.” Sir Wm. Oster, M. D., says in his The Principles arid Practice of Medicine, Page 151, under diphtheria: “The presence of the Klebs-Loeffler baccillus is regarded by bacteriologists as the sole criterion of true diphtheria and as this organism may be associated with all grades of throat affections, from a simple catarrh to a sloughing, gangrenous process, it is evident that in many instances there will be a striking discrepancy between the clinical and the bacterial diagnosis.”

The germ is found in simple catarrhal conditions and also in the mouth and throats of healthy infants and children; and is often absent from the throats of those presenting clinical pictures of diphtheria…

In his Mother’s Hygienic Handbook, 1874, Dr. Trall asserted “the pathological identity of croup and diphtheria.”

Membranous croup” is the worst form of diphtheria. These cases seldom appear to be very ill. For two or three days there is a rough, croupy cough which becomes a little more croupy each afternoon and evening, but wearing off somewhat in the forepart of the night and in the morning. The child’s breathing is not affected, he has an appetite and there is usually little uneasiness on the part of parents. Then, suddenly, the child almost suffocates. He tosses about on the bed, sits up and struggles in various ways in an effort to breathe. He becomes blue. In severe cases the child suffocates unless relieved by incubation or tracheotomy. In the milder cases the paroxysms are soon over, but they some times recur later…

CROUP:

Formerly croup was divided into membraneous and nonmembraneous or simple croup. Membraneous croup is now regarded as diphtheria. Dr. Trall thought the two croups differed only in degree and said “in the former case the exudation which forms on the mucous lining of the wind pipe (trachea) concretes into a membraneous covering, and in the latter case, the excreted matter is expectorated without consolidation.”

The differences in the behavior of the two exudates show a big difference in their characters, and points to differences in their causes. Simple croup is of a catarrhal nature and results from carbohydrate plethora; membraneous croup is of a serous nature and is the result of protein poisoning. Protein poisoning is more virulent than starch poisoning.

Croup is breathing difficulty accompanied by a “barking” cough. Croup, which is swelling around the vocal cords, is common in infants and children and can have a variety of causes.

…Before the era of immunizations and antibiotics, croup was a dreaded and deadly disease, usually caused by the diphtheria bacteria. Today, most cases of croup are mild. Nevertheless, it can still be dangerous.

Croup tends to appear in children between 3 months and 5 years old, but it can happen at any age. Some children are prone to croup and may get it several times.

In severe cases of croup, there may also be a bacterial super-infection of the upper airway. This condition is called bacterial tracheitis and requires hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. If the epiglottis becomes infected, the entire windpipe can swell shut, a potentially fatal condition called epiglottitis.

 

Tonsillitis is diptheria

Tonsil and throat infections may be caused by either a virus or bacteria, and can be spread from one person to the other through coughing, sneezing and nasal fluids. In preschool children and infants, the common cold virus or flu virus often causes chronic tonsillitis. In adults and adolescents, it is more likely to be caused by bacteria—the streptococcus, staphylocci, pneumococci, or hemophilus bacteria. In rare cases, the bacteria responsible for scarlet fever, diphtheria and mononucleosis can cause tonsillitis.

 

 

Acute Infectious Laryngitis


Acute infectious laryngitis is a common illness in all age groups and again is caused by viruses, especially influenza A, rhinovirus, and adenovirus. Diphtheria is a rare cause.

The illness is generally quite mild with sore throat, hoarseness, cough, and possibly mild inspiratory stridor. Respiratory distress is rare with the exception of young infants. If diphtheria is the cause, respiratory distress with airway compromise is quite marked secondary to the pseudomembrane blocking the laryngeal inlet . Complete obstruction and respiratory arrest may occur. Fortunately, immunization for diphtheria in the United States has made this disease extremely rare.

At one time, the term croup was primarily associated with diphtheria, a life-threatening respiratory infection. Owing to widespread vaccinations, diphtheria has become rare in the United States, and croup currently refers to a mild viral infection of the larynx. Croup is also known as laryngotracheitis, a medical term that describes the inflammation of the trachea (windpipe) and larynx.

Vincent’s angina is a form of sore throat in which there is usually a membrane resembling that of diphtheria. It usually begins as a small, whitish ulcer upon the tonsils or other part of the throat. The ulcer often extends through the crypts of the tonsils and produces an extensive loss of tissue. The disease is to be suspected when a deep ulcer can be seen in the throat or when the throat remains sore and raw after what was called diphtheria. It is caused by a spirochete which occurs in two forms: (1) a large crescent-shaped organism which stains heavily and unevenly; (2) a long, slender spirillum which stains faintly. A diagnosis may be made by taking a specimen of membrane with a swab, making a smear upon a cover-glass, and examining it at once. Large numbers of both organisms will usually be present in a smear from a positive case. A health officer can make a smear from a suspected case and send it to a laboratory for examination.

Vincent’s angina is not common, but it sometimes occurs in epidemics, and a health officer must keep the disease in mind. A case must be controlled in the same manner as one of diphtheria. Its treatment consists of swabbing the ulcer daily with a 20 to 50 per cent. solution of silver nitrate, and of painting the throat frequently with weaker solutions. A cure is indicated by a healing of the ulcer and by the absence of the organisms from smears.

 

…a milder tonsil infection due to the presence of organisms called the streptococcus and staphylococcus. But the existence of such an infection shows that the little patient’s throat membranes afford good soil for germs, and so it should be guarded against diphtheria with unusual vigilance. Bad teeth, mouth sores, enlarged tonsils, catarrhal inflammations and other abnormalities in the respiratory tract also predispose to the disease. Susceptibility is increased, again, by measles and scarlet fever. In the majority of cases, the germs first find a lodgment in the tonsils.

 

 

Immunity to Diphtheria

 

Acquired immunity to diphtheria is due primarily to toxin-neutralizing antibody (antitoxin). Passive immunity in utero is acquired transplacentally and can last at most 1 or 2 years after birth

 

 

…the increasing percentage of diphtheria cases in adults suggests that many adults may not be protected against diphtheria

 

 

The vaccine does not prevent carriage. The purpose of the vaccine is to make you immune to the toxins the toxogenic strains release. It is the toxins that can make you sick, and the toxins the bacteria releases that make the tonsils or sinuses, etc, an unfriendly environment to other floral bacteria. This in turn, allows the Diphtheria bacteria to take over and become an acute infection. 

 

Antitoxin does not cure the disease and toxin-antitoxin does not prevent it. Both these foreign proteins are responsible for many deaths in both the well and the sick, and for much other injury short of death.

Although comparatively few who come in contact with this disease develop it, it is considered highly contagious and, due to the contagion-superstition, these cases are quarantined. The writer has never handled but one case and saw this but once. After the quarantine was slapped on the case I handled it over the phone. The child made rapid recovery with no complications or sequelae. otein decomposition and by maintaining good health. Diphtheria is a phase of albumenuria.

 

The use of Diphtheria toxoid in children began in the 1930’s and 1940’s but uptake remained low. However,

..in the 1930s, a gradual rise in diphtheria incidence to 200 cases per 100,000 in the prewar period occurred in Germany and several other central European countries with partially implemented vaccination programs. The onset of World War II in 1939 and the occupation by German troops of many Western European countries led to the last diphtheria pandemic in western industrialized countries.

 

 The Diphtheria Shift

 

United States

Diphtheria cases remain isolated, with the last outbreaks reported between 1972-1982. Diphtheria incidence continued to decline steadily throughout the vaccine era in the United States and Western Europe (after the immediate postwar period). Cases of clinical diphtheria became extremely uncommon after the 1970s. Residual indigenous cases have been concentrated among incompletely vaccinated or unvaccinated persons of low socioeconomic status…

A feature of these epidemics concerns the age group; most cases have occurred in adolescents and adults, rather than in children.

Age

When diphtheria was endemic, it primarily affected children younger than 15 years; recently, the epidemiology has shifted to adults who lack natural exposure to toxigenic C diphtheriae in the vaccine era and those who have low rates of receiving booster injections. In the 27 sporadic cases of respiratory tract diphtheria reported in the United States in the 1980s, 70% occurred in persons older than 25 years.

Data from Europe are particularly noteworthy because the childhood immunization rate exceeds 95% in some countries (eg, Sweden), but approximately 20% of persons younger than 20 years and as many as 75% of persons older than 60 years lack the protective antibody….

 

dip3

 

 

Epidemiology

 

Infection can occur in immunized, partially immunized, and unimmunized persons. However, disease is usually less severe in those who are partially or fully immunized. Diphtheria is endemic in many parts of the world, including countries of the Caribbean and Latin America. The incidence of respiratory diphtheria is greatest in the fall and winter, but summer epidemics may occur in warm moist climates in which skin infections are prevalent. During the 1990s, large epidemics of diphtheria, primarily in adolescents and adults, occurred throughout Asia, the Middle East, Turkey, Albania, Russia, and the independent countries of the former Soviet Union

 

 

The Russian Experience:

What the Russians found was that with toxic diphtheria it wasn’t the antitoxin antibodies in the blood that was important, but how well the person could initiate the interferon response. If a person had difficulty producing interferon, they would get diphtheria and die regardless of their vaccination status or antibody status. If the person’s nutrition, immunity, and their innate immune system are working correctly, diphtheria isn’t a high risk.

 

Take a look at these studies. What sense does it make for an immunodeficeint child to have a vaccine for which they many not be able to make antibodies for?

 

  
A Russian study- child with an immunodeficiency: 


 
“Thymomegalia is registered in every third child in some regions [of Russia].” In this paper the authors confirm that after DPT-immunization of the children with thymomegalia the anti-diphtheria antibodies is not being produced at all or in an insufficient quantity.” (Source: The insufficiency of the anti-diphtheria antibodies production after immunization with DPT vaccine. Kuz’menko L. G., Arziamova V. V. Nedostatochnost’ produktsii protivodifteriinyh antitel u detei s timomegaliei pri immunizatsii vaktsinoi AKDS. Detskie infektsii (Children infections), 2004, 2(7), с. 24-26.)

  

Also- Clinical-immunological characteristics of the vaccinal process in children with 1st grade thymomegalia:


 
 
“It is known that DPT vaccination even in healthy children not only produces a specific immune response, but causes the allergic reorganization in the body, lowers the specific resistance…

  The children with modified reactivity from the high-risk groups react to DPT-vaccination by the long-term suppression of resistance, by developing postvaccinal complications, by defective immune response, by high morbidity

 

It was demonstrated the DPT-vaccinations (from the first to the third shot) in the most children with thymomegalia of the 1st grade by their first year of life caused the complicated course of the vaccinal process, namely allergic complications, acute respiratory diseases, the lack or inferior immune reaction to diphtheria or pertussis toxins and enlarging the thymus up to 2nd-3rd grade. The result of the three shots was the factual absence of immunity to whooping cough, low anti-diphtheria and high anti-tetanus… immunity.”  (Source: Clinical-immunological characteristics of the vaccinal process in children with 1st grade thymomegalia. Adishcheva N. I. Kliniko-immunologicheskie pokazateli vaktsinal’nogo protsessa AKDS u detei s uvelicheniem timusa I stepeni (Abstract of PhD thesis. Tomsk, 1996, pp. 2 and 24. )
 

 

What has some other medical research shown?

 

 
Incidence of infectious disease and the licensure of immunobiologics in the 
United States. 
( Am J Prev Med. 1997 Mar-Apr;13 (2):98-103.Campos-Outcalt D, Aickin M. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Maricopa Health System, Phoenix, 
Arizona, USA.) 
 
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to investigate the relationship of vaccine or 
toxoid licensure with the incidence of the target disease in the United States. 
METHODS: We used a historical correlational study design with outcome measures of the national incidence and elimination rate of polio, pertussis, diphtheria, and  measles as well as the New York City incidence and elimination rate of mumps, rubella, and tetanus.

 

RESULTS: The licensure of pertussis, measles, polio, mumps, and rubella vaccine was followed by an increase in the elimination rate of disease. The elimination rates of diphtheria and tetanus apparently worsened following the licensure of the respective toxoids.

 

CONCLUSIONS: Historical data provide evidence of proof of efficacy of mass immunization for measles, polio, rubella, mumps, and pertussis, but not for diphtheria or tetanus. 

 

 

Diphtheria: changing patterns in the developing world and the industrialized world.  

 

 

 

In the past, diphtheria was considered one of the most serious childhood diseases because it took a heavy toll in health and life among preschool-aged children. Prior to the widespread availability of diphtheria toxoid, nearly 70% of cases were in children younger than 15 years of age. In the industrialized countries, immunization against diphtheria became widespread in the 1940s and 1950s. This led to a marked decrease in the incidence of diphtheria. There was also a decrease in circulating toxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae organisms, resulting in less natural boosting of antibody levels. This had led to gaps in the immunity of the adult population. Since 1990, diphtheria has made a spectacular comeback in several European countries, with a high proportion of cases in adults

But recently, several developing countries where coverage has been high for 5-10 years have reported diphtheria outbreaks. These outbreaks have been characterized by high case fatality rates, a large proportion of patients with complications, and their occurrence in both young and older age groups…

 dip9

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Changing Epidemiology of Diphtheria in the Vaccine Era

(pdf: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi…e?JID981402PDF )

 

 

Patterns of Spread

 

The diphtheria epidemic in NIS provided important information. First, there was a high proportion of cases among adolescents and adults, especially in Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and in Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and a lower proportion of cases in these age groups in the southern republics of the Caucasus area and Central Asia. Second, the epidemic began as an urban epidemic, with a progressive transition to include rural areas over time. Third, the epidemic initially amplified in groups with high rates of close contacts (e.g., hospitals, military troops, indergartens, schools), and later, it made a transition to a more generalized epidemic involving socioeconomically disadvantaged groups (e.g., alcoholics).

 

Changes in Immunity Patterns by Age

 

Changes in the age-wise distribution of the immunity patterns usually have been explained by the argument that immunization led to a marked decrease in the incidence of the disease and to a subsequent reduction of the reservoir of toxigenic C. diphtheriaeorganisms. In the prevaccine era, exposure to toxigenic strains of diphtheria organisms was common, and this provided natural boosts to the development and maintenance of immunity against diphtheria. Children were susceptible, and most adults remained immune to the disease. However, after  immunization of children became widespread, diphtheria became rare, so exposure to these bacteria (and the concomitant natural boost of immunity) become uncommon. If adults do not have natural exposure to diphtheria-causing organisms or receive booster doses of diphtheria toxoid, their immunity induced by childhood immunization wanes, and they become susceptible to the disease [6, 14, 15].

 

*Blogger Note: Exposure to Diphtheria organisms is still common as Diphtheria bacteria are all around you, all the time. But you won’t find what you don’t test for.

 


A large body of evidence has documented changes in the immunity levels of various age groups in the pre- and postvaccine eras. In the prevaccine era, when the circulation of C.diphtheriae organisms was common and the prevalence of diphtheria cases was high, natural immunity was acquired by overt or subclinical infection. Most newborn infants passively acquired antibodies from their mothers via the placenta. In 1914 in Vienna [16] and in 1923 in New York City [17], »80% of newborns showed evidence of diphtheria immunity (figure 1). During the first several months of life, this passive immunity waned and was gradually replaced by active immunity, which was acquired through increasing exposure to natural infection.

 

 

By 15 years of age, 80% of the children had acquired natural immunity against diphtheria. The rate of acquisition of natural immunity, however, differs from country to country, probably due to differences in the intensity of early contact with diphtheria organisms, overcrowding, sanitation, and hygiene [15].

 

 …  In the early 1980s, the lowest levels of diphtheria antibodies in various areas of the Soviet Union were found in persons 20–40 years old [40–42], and at present, this least protected group has shifted to persons 30–40 years old. In other countries, low-level protection was found in persons 40–50 years old in Australia [43], England [44], Germany [45], and Poland [32, 33] and in persons 150 years old in Denmark [46], Finland [29], Sweden [47], and the United States [26].

 

Changes in the Age Distribution of Diphtheria Cases

 

When diphtheria was a common disease, it most frequently affected children: At least 40% of diphtheria cases were among children !5 years of age, and some 70% of the cases were among children 15 years of age. This classic pattern of diphtheria cases was seen in many countries, including the United States in 1908–1934 [48], Germany in 1929–1931 [49], and England and Wales in 1936–1937 [50]. Shifts in the age distribution of diphtheria cases has usually been explained by the impact of immunization. However, historical data show that a shift of the disease to older ages began before mass immunization was introduced.

 

All these observations suggest that changes in the age distribution of diphtheria cases resulted from factors other than vaccination. Socioeconomic factors, such as a general increase in the standard of living, smaller families, and less overcrowding, created an environment in which children were not subjected to the same intensity of infection in their preschool years as they had been previously. On the other hand, increasing enrollment in schools, summer camps, and meetings of children, adolescents, and adults from different neighborhoods and social backgrounds probably  contributed to wider circulation of C.diphtheriae within these age groups. Likewise, migration and displacement of many people during World War II probably enhanced the circulation of diphtheria organisms and contributed to the shift toward more adult cases [15].

 

 

Host susceptibility is the key to Diphtheria. Even fully immunized persons can have asymptomatic infections of C. diphtheria and can transmit diphtheria. The vaccine won’t make a bit of difference when it is solely the host factors that will determine the nature of the disease and its outcome.  Are you told that those who have adequate iron won’t get Diphtheria because the toxin can’t be produced in the presence of iron? The iron issue has more to do with the link to poverty than any other factor. You can have Diphtheria more than once if the conditions are right.

 

 
IMMUNIZATION

Clinical diphtheria does not necessarily confer natural immunity.

  

1990 Case Definition

Clinical case definition

An upper respiratory tract illness characterized by sore throat, low-grade fever, and an adherent membrane of the tonsil(s), pharynx, and/or nose without other apparent cause (as reported by a health professional)

Laboratory criteria for diagnosis

·         Isolation of Corynebacterium diphtheriae from a clinical specimen

Case classification

Probable: meets the clinical case definition, is not laboratory confirmed, and is not epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case

Confirmed: meets the clinical case definition and is either laboratory confirmed or epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case

Comment

Cutaneous diphtheria should not be reported.

1995 Case Definition

The 1995 case definition appearing on this page was re-published in the 1997 MMWR Recommendations and Reports titled Case Definitions for Infectious Conditions Under Public Health Surveillance [MMWR 1997;46(RR10)] (available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047449.htm). Thus, the 1995 and 1997 versions of the case definition are identical.

Clinical description

An upper respiratory tract illness characterized by sore throat, low-grade fever, and an adherent membrane of the tonsil(s), pharynx, and/or nose

Laboratory criteria for diagnosis

  • Isolation of Corynebacterium diphtheriae from a clinical specimen, or
  • Histopathologic diagnosis of diphtheria

Case classification

Probable: a clinically compatible case that is not laboratory confirmed and is not epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case

Confirmed: a clinically compatible case that is either laboratory confirmed or epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case

Comment

Cutaneous diphtheria should not be reported. Respiratory disease caused by nontoxigenic C. diphtheriae should be reported as diphtheria. All diphtheria isolates, regardless of association with disease, should be sent to the Diphtheria Laboratory, National Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC.

 

What Do They Know and When Did They Know It?

Global Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases

 

To date, diphtheria has not been a major problem in most developing countries. Immunization for infants and children was introduced with the Expanded Programme on Immunization in the late 1970s. Coverage of infants in developing countries with three doses of  DPT vaccine rose gradually from less than 10 per cent in 1974 to 81 per cent in 1995 (Expanded Programme on Immunization 1996). In these countries, the process of maintaining immunity still operates through natural mechanisms, including frequent skin infections caused by C. diphtheriae.

Socioeconomic changes, especially rapid urbanization with migration from rural areas, and sociocultural changes, including improved hygiene and different lifestyles, are changing the epidemiological patterns of diphtheria, so that in some developing countries epidemics are occurring, with more serious faucial and laryngeal forms. Algeria, China, Ecuador, Jordan,

Lesotho, and Yemen have reported diphtheria outbreaks which occurred following a 5 to 10 year period of high immunization coverage. These outbreaks have been characterized by high case fatality rates (CFRs), a large proportion of patients with complications, and occurrence in both young and older age groups (Galazka & Robertson 1995).

 

Completeness of routine reporting:

 

The true numbers of diphtheria cases and deaths are unknown. In developed countries, where diphtheria occurs in the form of single imported cases or, as recently in the Russian Federation and Ukraine, in defi nite outbreaks, the reporting may be assumed to be good. In developing countries, however, where the disease is usually endemic, reporting systems are

weak and the impact of immunization on disease incidence is monitored primarily through national incidence fi gures. Such statistics are often inaccurate because they are based on incomplete data gathered by the routine surveillance systems, which are usually hospital-based.

 

Completeness of reporting depends mainly on two elements. First, the public must have access to health services and use them. Second, the health services must report cases accurately and regularly to the appropriate public health authorities. A study in 13 developing countries that compared survey data with reported data found that only 2 to 5 per cent of tetanus cases and 1 to 26 per cent of poliomyelitis cases were detected and reported through routine surveillance systems (Expanded Programme on Immunization 1982). Overall reporting efficiency for the vaccine preventable diseases is estimated to be less than 10 per cent, although this estimate does not specifi cally address diphtheria case reporting (Expanded Programme on Immunization 1994b). Further efforts are needed to establish highly efficient surveillance systems capable of detecting most cases of targeted diseases.

 

 

 

Immunity to diphtheria and tetanus in inner-city women of childbearing age.

B A Koblin and T R Townsend. Am J Public Health. 1989 September; 79(9): 1297–1298.

 

Sera were collected between August 1984 and June 1986 from women …the last 20 years have found a higher percent of women susceptible compared to the present study. However, these studies have also reported an increase in the proportion susceptible with age. Millian, et al, found low levels of tetanus antitoxin (<0.01 unitlml) in 25 percent of women aged 20-29 years and 37 percent of women aged 30-39 years. Levels of diphtheria antitoxin <0.02 unit/ml were found in 15 percent of women aged 15-19 years, 19 percent of women 20-29 years, and 24 percent of women 30-39 years…

 

 In the present study, the percent of women susceptible to diphtheria was higher in all age groups compared to tetanus. One reason for this observation may be the use of tetanus toxoid alone as the practice for wound prophylaxis after trauma instead of the combined diphtheria-tetanus toxoids. Another reason is that diphtheria toxoid is less antigenic than tetanus toxoid and therefore the duration of seroprotection following immunization may be less than that observed for tetanus toxoid…

 

However, the protective level of antitoxin for diphtheria is less well defined than that for tetanus. Outbreaks do occur in communities in which immunization has been extensive and immunization with diphtheria toxoid may modify disease rather than prevent its occurrence.  Susceptibility to diphtheria in the older age groups can be a result of lack of exposure to diphtheria in the past, lack of completion of the primary series in childhood, or lack of boosters since childhood…

 

 

Diphtheria in the United States, 1971-81.

R T Chen, C V Broome, R A Weinstein, R Weaver, and T F Tsai.Am J Public Health. 1985 December; 75(12): 1393–1397.

 

 

General Trends.  Diphtheria case incidence remained relatively unchanged from the previous decade until 1975, when the rate began to plummet(Figure 1), reaching a low of two cases (0.01 case per million) in 1980. Mortality paralleled the decline in incidence, including no deaths in 1980. The death-to-case ratio remained close to the historically prevailing 10 per cent until 1976, demonstrating the continued high risk of death associated with diphtheria. It has since varied erratically because of the small number of cases annually….

 

dip4

 

Carriers

 

The frequency of diphtheria carriage in the United States is not known accurately. Nontoxigenic isolates and carriers not associated with outbreaks were probably not detected by the surveillance system. The 471 noncutaneous carriers that were reported resembled the cases in age, sex, and racial distribution, but had better immunization status and a lower proportion of toxigenic strains isolated.

 

Discussion

 

Diphtheria incidence in the United States has fallen steadily since at least the 1920s (Figure 1). The reasons for the decline before the introduction of diphtheria toxoid immunization are

unclear, but may be related to factors such as diphtheria toxin-antitoxin use and general improvements in socioeconomic factors, nutrition, and housing

 

The incidence of noncutaneous diphtheria disease have reached the lowest recorded levels ever in the United States. While the degree of diphtheria underdiagnosis is unknown, the continued decline in incidence is further corroborated by the National Center for Health Statistics mortality data. The decline in diphtheria incidence in the United States during 1971-81 occurred despite serologic studies during the 1970s showing subprotective serum diphtheria antitoxin levels in approximately 25 per cent of the children’0″ and 75 per cent of the adults’2 tested in three US cities. Furthermore, the US Immunization Survey, based on interview question- naires, showed a gradual increase in the percentage of children less than 14 years old not immunized with at least three doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine (DTP), from 17 per cent in 1971 to 26 per cent in 1981 ‘for Whites, and from 29 per cent to 47 per cent for non-Whites. Surveys of the actual immunization records of the children in the same age group, available since 1980, showed that 10 per cent of the Whites and 32 per cent of the non-Whites in 1981 were not fully immunized.

 

The experience with diphtheria immunization indicates that an immunization level of 70 per cent 80 per cent is needed to prevent epidemic spread. However, immunization with diphtheria toxoid is protective only against the phage-mediated toxin, and not against infection by the C. diphtheriae organism. Thus immunized persons have less severe disease when infected, but may remain important as asymptomatic carriers in the transmission of disease. Outbreaks in communities with up to 94 per cent immunization levels have been reported. Therefore, some authors have challenged whether “herd immunity” is applicable to diphtheria.

 

…Also, as diphtheria incidence decreases, the proportion of the population with natural immunity from prior exposure will also decrease.

 

 

Also see: Gross Estimation–Diphtheria Statistics Defy Reality

 

 

How Long Does Immunity to Diphtheria Last?

Eli Eichelberger.Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1948 September; 38(9): 1234–1238.

 

 

 

From these figures it becomes obvious that diphtheria can no longer be considered a disease of infancy and childhood alone. Such statistics bear out the conclusions of an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association  which concluded that diphtheria was increasing and that there was a tendency for the disease to become relatively more prevalent among the older age groups. It appears that our thinking regarding this disease will have to be revised, as well as our evaluation of the duration of diphtheria immunity. If a large per cent of adults are now susceptible, it must be assumed that they must never have been immunized, or if previously immunized,they must have lost their immunity. Consequently, one who thinks of diphtheria as a childhood disease may entirely miss the diagnosis in the adult unless facts regarding this disease are appreciated.

 

 

Exposure as a Factor in the Age Distribution of Measles, Diphtheria, and Poliomyelitis

W. Lloyd Aycock.Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1934 May; 24(5): 433–437.

 

dip5 

 

…actual infection in non-immunes produces diphtheria with approximately equal frequency at all ages. However, this does not mean that all infected non-immunes develop the disease, but only that risk of disease in infected non-immunes appears to be equal at all ages….

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The variation in the occurrence of measles, diphtheria, and poliomyelitis in non-immune persons at different ages would appear to be due in part to a difference in the frequency with which persons of different ages are exposed to respective viruses, and in part to a difference in the frequency with which persons of different ages are infected under the same apparent degree of exposure. The differences in the risk of infection at different ages in measles, diphtheria, and poliomyelitis would appear to be due to quantitative or qualitative differences in personal, social or household habits of persons of different ages, which habits constitute sanitary habits in the present connection.

 

dip6 

 

MORTALITY FROM DIPHTHERIA DECREASING

Am J Public Health (N Y). 1926 June; 16(6): 621–622.

 

 

THE third annual summary of diphtheria mortality in the large cities of the United States deserves more than a passing mention. It has frequently been stated that while the use of diphtheria antitoxin has greatly lessened the mortality of the disease, the incidence of the disease has not shown any decided decrease. In addition to this every health officer knows that many cases of diphtheria are not treated promptly, and many times even where antitoxin is used, it comes too late to do much good. Every year sees the public becoming more and more educated, and there seems reason to believe that diphtheria antitoxin is being more and better employed. Until 1920 but little improvement could be demonstrated in- the mortality from diphtheria in the majority of cities. From 1910 to 1914 only 13 cities had rates which averaged under 10. In the periods from 1915 to 1919 and 1920 to 1924, only 18 cities had an average rate under 10, while in 1924, 37 cities, and in 1925, 49 cities, had rates under 10. Making the estimate according to the population of the 70 cities studied, 29,243,128 in 1923, and 31,049,595. in 1925, we find that the diphtheria death rate in the former year was 13.12 per 100,OQO against 9.74 for 1925. In spite of an increase of practically 2 million in population, the actual deaths for diphtheria decreased more than 800 for these cities. Perhaps even more encouraging than this figure is the fact that 10 cities, all of considerable size, showed death rates under 4 per 100,000, while 8 cities, including several of the largest in the United States, have shown a continuous decline in diphtheria death rate by 5-year periods from 1-890 to 1924.

 

CAN DIPHTHERIA BE ELIMINATED?

F. W. Sears.Am J Public Health (N Y). 1925 February; 15(2): 98–101.

 

The adult diphtheria previous to the beginning of our work was only a fraction of the total number of cases in the city, while during the past year the adult diphtheria cases have outnumbered both those of the school children and the preschool children. This is similar to what occurred following vaccination against smallpox. Previous to the days of vaccination smallpox was considered to be a children’s disease. Since general vaccination it has become an adult disease. May we not expect that the same thing will occur with general immunization of children against diphtheria ?

 

DIPHTHERIA MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY

Am J Public Health (N Y). 1924 May; 14(5): 427–429.

 

Laryngeal diphtheria is still a prime cause of death, and it seems that there are still a few physicians who consider membranous croup one disease and diphtheria another. It is especially difficult to obtain positive swabs from cases of laryngeal diphtheria, but it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that membranous croup is laryngeal diphtheria and should be treated as such. It seems necessary also to insist that in every case of sore throat or nasal discharge in which there is any suspicion or possibility of diphtheria swabs should be taken for laboratory examination.

 

 

 

Reasons for the Failure of Our Methods to Control Diphtheria

J. W. Robinson.Am J Public Health (N Y). 1922 June; 12(6): 497–502.

 

quarantine is of no value in the control of diphtheria and only leads to a feeling of security that is false, for it is indeed a sad state of affairs that neither the morbidity nor mortality of diphtheria has declined to any great extent during the last ten years. Figures given by Weaver,” Carey,2 Hull,” and others, prove this…

 

First, transmission requires a close contact, such as actually coughing in the face while someone is inhaling, drinking out of a cup soon after a carrier has used it, or using some other equally good method to transmit the infection. Second, that the percentage of people of any age group who are susceptible, is much less than ‘tests by the Schick test would indicate. The number of secondary cases in families and’ institutions verifies this statement. There is usually more or less contact in either class of places before a diagnosis is made and precautions are taken. And in private homes, unless the case is removed to a hospital, it is exceptional that isolation of the case is carried out until negative cultures are obtained. And yet, what per cent of the other children contract clinical diphtheria? It is very much less than the percentage of susceptibles as determined by the Schick test would lead us to believe. ‘It is difficult to furnish exact figures, as isolation of some cases has been’ complete, and in others the contacts ‘have each’ received a prophylactic dose of antitoxin…

 

…occasionally one will carry bacilli for some time and then develop a clinical case, but such cases are uncommon. In this connection one must bear in mind that unless the symptoms are typical of diphtheria they may be due to other causes.  A point to which others have drawn attention is the occasional absence of a membrane, and other typical symptoms mentioned in text-books. Occasionally one sees a case of sore throat and fever from which a positive culture of diphtheria bacilli is obtained, and yet no benefit is derived from the use of antitoxin. These cases may well be some of those who are carriers that are always found if cultures are taken, and become sick with tonsilitis or other throat trouble.

 

…It seems from practical experience, as determined from statistics given by various writers and from analysis of conditions existing at present, and which probably will exist until a far future date, that the morbidity rate of diphtheria will remain practically the same.

 

 …Unless it is carefully explained to those immunized that the protection is of short duration, it may cause them to have a feeling of false security at a future date, and so throw them off their guard as to overlook a diagnosis with a possible fatality as the result. While the danger of anaphylaxis is so small as to be negligible, this does not hold true if it is necessary at a later date to use antitetanic or some other serum when the people may forget to tell the physician or he may not ask them of the use of the diphtheria antitoxin previously. The use of a prophylactic dose does not necessarily prevent them from becoming carriers, and it is always a disappointment to the people and disagreeable to the quarantine officers under those conditions to have to extend the quarantine period after the clinical case has cleared up or been removed to a hospital.

 

 

DIPHTHERIA CARRIERS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MEDICAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS

Henry Albert.Am J Public Health (N Y). 1912 October; 2(10): 794–798.

 

 

It is very certain that diphtheria has been kept alive for months in institutions and communities by such carriers. Indeed it is quite probable that carriers with either a normal throat or a slightly “sore” throat, are the source of more cases of diphtheria than persons affected by well marked cases of the disease.

 

…The proportion of children not affected by what is recognized as clinical diphtheria but wbo are diphtheria carriers varies naturally according to the extent of exposure. In 1894, Park* found virulent diphtheria bacilli in about one per cent of healthy tlhroats examined in New York City. In 1907, Fisher,t examining the throats of 4,081 healthy individuals living in the Connecticut Hospital for the Insane, where there were a number of cases of diphtheria, found that 2.08 per cent of them were diphtheria bacilli carriers. It has been shown by the examination of a large number of cases, that when clinical diphtheria is not present in a community about one per cent of the population are carriers of diphtheria bacilli, but that when diphtlheria is present in a conmmunity the percentage is very much higher-ranging from 5 to 10 percent. The percentage of carriers among healthy persons who have been quite directly exposed to infection, is often as high as 50.

 

 

 

Present Status of Diphtheria

William C. Woodward.Public Health Pap Rep. 1901; 27: 238–240.

 

Diphtheria infection apparently depends on the relation between the virulence of the infecting organisms and the susceptibility of the individual attacked. It involves, therefore, questions of quantity as well as quality of the infection, and of degree as well as character of

personal immunity and vital resistance. Unsanitary conditions tend to diminish the vital resistance of the animal organism and, therefore, make it more prone to succumb to attack. Personal uncleanliness on the part of the patient and of those in attendance on him favors

the spread of the disease by increasing the dissemination of infective particles through the atmosphere. Overcrowding tends to the same end by diminishing the absolute quantity of air in the infected room without a corresponding diminution in the amount of infection, thus increasing the density of the infection in the atmosphere, and increasing the likelihood of those exposed to such atmosphere receiving effectively toxic doses of infection. Unsanitary conditions, including personal uncleanliness and overcrowding, are, therefore, active agents in the spread of diphtheria infection.

 

The Official Definition of Diphtheria

Hibbert Winslow Hill. Public Health Pap Rep. 1899; 25: 243–248.

 

In no disease is this lack of definition more evident than in the case of diphtheria. Perhaps no disease has been more discussed, certainly no disease- is better known or understood, yet one hears again and again the question asked, where shall the line be drawn between diphtheria and not diphtheria? This question is asked publicly and privately, by the profession, by health officials and by the laity….

 

Given a combination of patient and bacillus, a long series of possibilities arise. Were all diphtheria bacilli equally virulent and all patients equally susceptible, such a combination of bacillus and patient would result in a definite set of pathological changes in almost all cases and leave little room for indecision in diagnosis. But because of the wide variations in the degree of virulence of the bacillus and in the degree of resistance of the patient, the pathological changes essential to the disease which are the resultant of these two forces (leaving out of the question for the present the effect of environment or of treatment) may be entirely absent, and when present vary in degree almost infinitely. Nevertheless, certain distinct classes may be recognized, and these classes give the key to the situation. The evidence accumulated in the last few years allows us to believe that we may classify the bacilli into two main groups, virulent and nonvirulent, and patients into two groups also, resistant and non-resistant. The virulence or non-virulence of a given diphtheria bacillus may be determined by animal inoculation. This admits of some discussion perhaps, but for our present purposes, we may accept the test as giving a basis for consideration. The resistance or non-resistance of the patient can be determined only, in any specific case, by the development or non-development of the disease, after infection with a virulent organism. This also is a determinable factor in some cases at least. Granting so much then, four classes of cases arise in which bacilli may be found.

 

Class 1. Non-virulent bacilli found in the throats of resistant subjects.

Class 2. Non-virulent bacilli found in the throats of non-resistant subjects.

Class 3. Virulent bacilli found in the throats of resistant subjects.

Class 4. Virulent bacilli found in the throats of non-resistant subjects.

 

Cases falling under classes 1 and 2 are probably rare and are not likely to be found except in epidemics or in other circumstances where wholesale bacteriological examinations are made, because ordinarily there would be nothing to call attention to the subject of such infection.

 

Class No. 3 in which virulent bacilli are found, producing, however, no lesions, on account of the resistance of the subject, are frequently met with.

 

Class No. 4 includes all the cases of clinical diphtheria-that is, where pathological conditions are present and are sufficiently marked to call -attention to the patient.

 

So far then, we have arrived logically at the conclusion that the problem presented is to decide whether “diphtheria” is patient + diphteria bacillus simply, or patient + diphtheria bacillus + typical lesions.

 

I think it will be admitted that the first combination, patient + diphtheria bacillus alone, does not predicate a disease at all-since the essential element of disease is pathological change-and if that combination is not a disease, it cannot be the disease of diphtheria. Nor

is it logical to assert that patient + diphtheria bacillus + typical lesions necessarly constitutes diphtheria although that formula will cover most cases. The typical lesion which attracts most attention and to which we may confine ourselves for the present purpose is an inflammation of the throat, or more definite still, the presence of a pseudo-membrane. If such inflammation, or pseudo-membrane never occurred except as a result of the presence of the diphtheria bacillus, then patient + diphtheria bacillus + inflammation or membrane would be decisive. To such a combination and to such only could the term “disease of diphtheria” be applied. But both inflammation and pseudo-membrane, indistinguishable in practice at times from those produced by the diphtheria bacillus, are of frequent occurrence-the bacilli nevertheless being absent.

 

Moreover upon such membranes, often due to streptococci, may be implanted diphtheria bacilli, both non-virulent and virulent forms. Thus the combination patient + diphtheria bacillus + pseudo-membrane may exist, where the pseudomembrane is due to a streptococcus solely. Such a case constitutes a disease certainly, but not necessarily the disease of diphtheria. Lest anyone should object that this is a purely hypothetical case, I may cite the not infrequent finding of diphtheria bacilli in the throats of scarlet fever patients suffering from a streptococcus pseudo-membrane, the diphtheria bacilli producing no appreciable effect whatever. It would be no more logical to say that such a patient was suffering from diphtheria because the combination of patient + diphtheria bacillus + pathological changes (due to the streptococcus) was present than to say that patient + diphtheria bacillus + pathological changes (due to the typhoid organism) constituted diphtheria. It seems plain then that the only possible combination which we can logically recognize as the disease of diphtheria is not patient + diphtheria bacillus + typical lesions, but patient + diphtheria bacillus + lesions, due to the diphtheria bacillus. Given this combination, the additional presence of an active streptococcus in the throat does not invalidate the diagnosis of diphtheria any more than would the additional presence of an active typhoid organism in the intestine.

 

It is evident that the reasoning here used will apply equally well to any other parasitic disease. My only reason for presenting so obvious a conclusion depends on the confusion which sometimes exists amongst the public, and even the profession, especially when the question of

reporting a doubtful case comes up. Thus, a positive culture is obtained from a healthy throat, or from a throat showing the mildest of lesions, or from a streptococcus throat in scarlet fever or other acute specific in which the previous diagnosis was established and the diphtheria bacillus discovered later shows no clinical indications of activity. Thereupon, the attending physician, and the legal medical officer of the district may be in doubt as to the proper classification of the patient.

 

To the physician, the recognition of the pathological changes and the determination of their cause is the important matter. To the medical officer, the diagnosis, so far as the patient’s welfare is concerned, is of less importance than the protection of the public health. To the one, the presence, or absence of the diphtheria bacillus is regarded chiefly as an aid to diagnosis; to the other, the presence or absence of the bacillus is the essential point at issue. The physician wishes to fortify his patient against the disease of diphtheria, the medical officer desires to protect the public from the bacillus of diphtheria. If a hypothetical case be considered in which the disease of diphtheria was produced by inoculation with the toxin of diphtheria only, the bacilli of diphtheria being absent, the physician would still have the interest of his patient to consider, while the medical officer might go his way free of responsibility. In the far more frequent cases where the bacillus is present, but the toxin absent or ineffective, it is the physician who is relieved of responsibility, whereas the medical officer’s duty to the public remains to be performed. To apply the foregoing considerations to actual practice, it must be remembered that it is impossible at the present time to observe such rules of procedure as will meet every possible condition here outlined.

 

For instance, it is usually impracticable, from the executive standpoint, to determine in every case the virulence or non-virulence of the bacilli found by the bacteriologist,-certainly it is impossible to determine it in time to be of service in diagnosis. It is necessary then to assume that all the diphtheria bacilli detected are virulent and experiment confirms the natural expectation that such an assumption is correct in the great majority of cases. Again, in any specific case when the diphtheria bacillus is present accompanied by lesions similar to those usually produced by this bacillus, it is often impossible at present to determine immediately and absolutely that those lesions are due to the diphtheria bacillus rather than to other organisms which may be also present. Here again it is usual to assume that the diphtheria bacillus is the cause of the lesions it accompanies,-and this assumption also is usually true. The evident necessity for making these assumptions in practice, perfectly right and proper as such assumptions are in the majority of cases, is just exactly the necessity which gives rise, in the minority of cases, to misunderstanding and confusion…

 

Report of the Committee on the Cause and Prevention of Diphtheria

J. J. Kinyoun. Public Health Pap Rep. 1896; 22: 56–67.

 

 

The so-called membranous croup is yet, we regret to state, a most serious disturbing factor in our fight against diphtheria. It is with surprise and regret that we see how firmly entrenched in the minds of the medical profession is the idea that croup is a non-infectious disease. It has been demonstrated over and over again, so plainly that he who runs may read that nearly nine tenths of these cases are laryngeal diphtheria. Yet despite all this, death certificates are constantly sent in to the board of health as “croup.” These are the landmarks, or rather, tombstones, marking the foci of epidemics of diphtheria. It is noted with satisfaction, however, that many of our state, provincial, and municipal boards of health are beginning to be emancipated from such ideas, and now regard the terms ” membranous croup ” or ” croup ” and ” diphtheria ” as synonyms, and treat them accordingly.

… It is noted especially that the death-rate from “croup ” in the cities of the United States which have not adopted microscopic examinations, is very high in proportion to the number of deaths from diphtheria, and also in proportion to the population; while on the other hand, the number of cases of death from croup in those places in which the diagnosis is made by the culture test, has fallen, and the number of cases of diphtheria has increased somewhat.

 

 

Since the adoption of this method for diagnostic purposes, there has been an increase in the number of cases of diphtheria, due in part to the croup cases, already referred to, being properly diagnosed, and the additional cases of laboratory diphtheria. It has been asserted that on account of including these latter cases the death-rate from diphtheria has not been diminished, and the statements made to the contrary are misleading. It must not be lost sight of that the microscopic examinations have been the cause of eliminating a considerable number of cases formerly classed as diphtheria….

 

It is to be regretted that the statistics from which these data are compiled are not more complete. Many states have a very imperfect system of their vital statistics, and while it is possihIe to obtain data from the majority concerning the death-rate from diphtheria and croup, it is difficult to obtain those dealing with their morbidity.

 

dip7

 

 

dip8 

As you can see, it has been freely admitted in the medical literature that the vaccine had nothing to do with the decline of Diphtheria or mortality rate. The records show that few children had the vaccine when the decline had already begun! Susceptibility is the key, not whether or not you have had the vaccine, and remains that way to this day.

Merck Stops Producing Vaccines Without Cells From Babies Killed in Abortions

Merck Stops Producing Vaccines Without Cells From Babies Killed in Abortions

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A leading pro-life group that educates about the vaccines that are based on the cells from babies killed in abortions is worried about a new decision from the pharmaceutical giant Merck. The company has decided to stop producing some vaccines that are not made based on fetal cells from abortions.

Merck & Co. Inc has stopped the production and sale of its monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.

Instead, the company will focus on combination vaccine, MMRII, which accounts for 98 percent of the company’s sales of the vaccines targeting those diseases.

The monovalent vaccines account for only two percent of the total sales but they are important to the pro-life movement because they are produced based on animal cells and not from cells obtained from the bodies of babies killed in abortions.

“Merck’s separate dose for rubella, Meruvax, uses aborted fetal cell lines and taints the entire MMR II vaccine,” Debi Vinnedge of the pro-life group Children of God for Life tells LifeNews.com.

“The separate doses of Attenuvax (measles) and Mumpsvax (mumps) use chick embryo. Without these separate doses for measles and mumps, there will be no moral alternative for parents,” Vinnedge says.

Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose said the decision to eliminate the monovalent vaccines was made for both financial and health reasons.

“The combination vaccine is what’s recommended, and it’s such a significant portion of the orders we see,” she told AAFP. “It’s in the best interest of public health to make more of that rather than dedicate manufacturing capacity to monovalents.”

Rose said Merck has not decided if it will make the moral monovalent vaccines available for sale again in the future.

Vinnedge’s group issued Merck a letter on Tuesday asking the company to reconsider its decision.

She says millions of pro-life Americans “are deeply concerned with the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the rubella portion of your MMR II and other vaccines, I am asking you to reconsider your position.”

She also said parents have been willing to wait for the alternative vaccines to be produced and were willing to pay higher costs in order to give their children vaccines that are not abortion-based.

“Once again, many of these families are waiting for you to resume production and their children will be unprotected unless you provide the doses. They are already abstaining from rubella and some have even flown overseas to vaccinate their children. That is, in my view, a disgrace to American healthcare,” she said.

Vinnedge says Merck’s decision is far-reaching because Merck is the sole provider of these alternative vaccines.

ACTION: Contact Merck and express your desire for the company to reverse its decision and make the non-abortion vaccines available. Contact Richard Clark, CEO, Merck & Company, One Merck Drive P.O. Box 100, Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100. Call 908-423-1000 or find more information at http://www.merck.com/contact

Related web sites:
Children of God for Life – http://www.cogforlife.org

Serotype 19A of Streptococcus pneumoniae

19A Linked to Necrotizing Pneumonia

Pediatric News  Volume 42, Issue 12, Page 12 (December 2008)

 

WASHINGTON — Serotype 19A of Streptococcus pneumoniae is the culprit behind some complicated cases of necrotizing pneumonia in young children, based on findings from four cases that occurred between September 7, 2007, and March 30, 2008, at a single hospital.

“Severe necrotizing pneumonia caused by this serotype had not previously been reported in children,” explained Dr. Susan Wootton of the University of Texas, Houston, who presented the cases with her associates in a poster at the jointly held annual meeting of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy and the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

The 19A strain is one of several that are not included in the current pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, PCV7. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that also were presented at the meeting showed an increase in invasive pneumococcal disease from nonvaccine serotypes in all age groups.

The four children ranged in age from 3 to 4 years (mean age, 3.4 years). Of these, three were previously healthy and one had asthma. All four had been vaccinated with PCV7. S. pneumoniae was isolated from pleural fluid in three cases and from blood in three cases.

Chest radiographs revealed multilobar infiltrates in four children, empyema in three children, and pneumatoceles in two children. Overall, three children were admitted to the intensive care unit and intubated 5–22 days, with an average of 11 days. In addition, three children had abscesses that required surgical drainage. The hospital stays ranged from 11 to 28 days (average stay, 19 days).

Serotype 19A has not previously been reported as a cause of complicated pneumonia in children, but these cases suggest that it should now be considered in the differential diagnosis, Dr. Wootton and her associates noted.

This study was limited by its small size and narrow geographical scope, and more research is needed to assess the large-scale impact of serotype 19A on necrotizing pneumonia. But the results support the need for an expanded pneumococcal vaccine for children in the United States, they said.

Dr. Wootton stated that she had no financial conflicts to disclose.

MMR vaccine and Childhood Chronic Disease

Current childhood vaccine programs: An overview with emphasis on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and of its compromising of the mucosal immune system

 

– Harold E. Buttram, MD – (full text pdf) journal article (Medical Veritas) via VIC Vaccine Injury Coalition

Monovalent vaccines for Measles, Mumps, Rubella

Merck Focusing on Combination Vaccine

Manufacturer Stops Sales of Monovalents for Measles, Mumps, Rubella

By David Mitchell
12/24/2008

Merck & Co. Inc. has stopped production and sales of its monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. The manufacturer instead plans to focus on its combination vaccine, MMRII.

Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose said MMRII accounts for 98 percent of the company’s volume for measles, mumps and rubella vaccines, compared to just 2 percent from monovalent vaccines Attenuvax (measles), Mumpsvax (mumps) and Meruvax (rubella).

“The combination vaccine is what’s recommended, and it’s such a significant portion of the orders we see,” said Rose. “It’s in the best interest of public health to make more of that rather than dedicate manufacturing capacity to monovalents.”

Rose said Merck had not decided when, or if, it might make the monovalent vaccines available for sale in the future.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, M.D., M.P.A., who serves as the AAFP’s liaison to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and is a former member of the AAFP Commission on Clinical Policies and Research, said Merck’s decision was insignificant in terms of public health. He added, however, that some parents likely will be unhappy.

“The use of the single antigen is pretty limited,” he said. “There’s no harm if you need one in getting all three. There are some parents out there that want a delayed vaccine schedule. They want the vaccines spread out over a longer period of time and not so many at once. That’s a lot of hooey. Alternative schedules have never been proven to be superior.”

NY vaccine exemption article

NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter

New Yorker’s Stand Up for Vaccine Exemptions

 by Barbara Loe Fisher

In the harbor of New York City stands the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of freedom that has welcomed millions of immigrants for 112 years, half of the time that the United States of America has been a nation. And on the base of the statue is an inscription that says in part “…..Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free….”

I remembered that phrase when we were driving from Washington, D.C. to New York City and our van got caught up in the Sunday afternoon Manhattan traffic that led us past the Empire State Building on our way to Long Island. Freedom was very much on my mind as we headed for Stony Brook University to participate in the December 15 Vaccine Education Roundtable sponsored by New York state Assemblymen Marc Alessi (D-1st Assembly District) and Richard Gottfried (D-75th Assembly District), who is Chair of the House Health Committee.

Americans have always cherished the freedom to breathe free; to speak, write and dissent without fear of retribution; to believe in God and worship freely without being persecuted; to vote for whom we want to represent us in government and know our vote counts; to follow our conscience and stand up for what is right. Although America is only 222 years old, which is very young compared to other countries that have existed for several thousands of years, during our short history there is no other nation that has defined and defended the freedom of citizens to live in a society based on the principle of equal rights and consent of the governed any better than the United States of America.

These are troubled times for parents in New York and New Jersey and other states. Every day parents are facing more hostility from pediatricians throwing them out of doctor’s offices for questioning vaccine safety and are being harassed by government officials determined to force their children to get dozens of doses of state mandated vaccines without voluntary, informed consent. New York currently mandates more than two dozen doses of 11 vaccines for school attendance while New Jersey leads the nation with nearly three dozen doses of 13 vaccines, including annual influenza shots.

Religious exemptions are being pulled by state officials after they throw parents into rooms and grill them for hours about the sincerity of their religious beliefs. Last year in Maryland, state officials threatened several thousand parents with jail time and stiff fines for failing to show proof their children had gotten hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccinations.

It is in this climate of fear and crisis of trust between parents, who want a more equal role in making vaccination decisions for their children, and pediatricians and public health officials, who are determined to strengthen their power to tell parents what to do, that Assemblymen Alessi assembled a panel representing both sides to discuss whether or not a philosophical exemption to vaccination should be added to New York’s vaccine laws. Currently New York only provides for a medical and religious exemption, even as 18 other states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

After the Roundtable, Assemblyman Gottfried expressed strong support for First Amendment rights and told the audience of parents, doctors and legislative staff that he is sponsoring two bills to clarify rights defined under existing religious and medical exemptions so they cannot be violated by state officials. After the Roundtable concluded, he said “Important issues were raised. I look forward to seeing additional data from all sides, especially about the impact of the personal objection laws in other states. I will be reintroducing my bills to strengthen the religious and medical exemptions in the 2009 session. I urge parents to contact their local assembly members and state senators to urge them to co-sponsor.”

Assemblyman Alessi commented that “The discussion framed the fact that there is still a large debate on the issue. And although some people in the medical community are adamant that this debate is over, it has only just begun. The amount of conflicting evidence parents are presented with regarding the effects of certain vaccines is staggering. This forum opened the lines of communication between experts in the debate and provided concerned parents with the most recent information on the safety of vaccines. As a parent, I know how difficult it is to make the right decisions regarding our children’s health, but if we are to make good decisions, we need to be well informed and continue to have discussions like this roundtable.”

At the beginning of the Roundtable, I framed the vaccine safety and informed consent debate and outlined how the informed consent principle relates to philosophical/conscientious belief exemption. I reviewed the general health ranking of New York (25th) compared to the 18 states which have philosophical exemptions (six of the top 10 ranked states have philosophical exemption) and noted that the U.S. uses more vaccines than any nation in the world but ranks 39th in infant mortality. Click here to read my entire presentation with live links to references (see text below).

Other panelists supporting philosophical exemption to vaccination included New York pediatrician Lawrence Palevsky, M.D. , who called for an authentic dialogue that “moves past what appears to a growing number of citizens to be a one-sided, paternalistic, and patronizing set of policies and language with an unwillingness to engage in a real discussion about the science of vaccines.” He challenged many of the myths and misconceptions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccine policies.

New York’s John Gilmore, executive director of Autism United, who has a vaccine injured son with autism and said “without trust, the proponents of forced vaccination have nothing but authority and authority is an unacceptable basis for any public policy in a democratic society.” He pointed out operational flaws and conflicts of interest in vaccine safety regulation and policymaking. Louise Kuo Habakus, of the New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice, who has two young sons recovering from vaccine injuries, presented slides summarizing vaccine risks and questioning whether vaccines can be credited with major infectious disease morbidity and mortality decreases in the 20th century. She recounted her impression of the day’s events at www.ageofautism.com. (In related events, New Jersey parents held several open houses this week to educate New Jersey legislators about the need to support pending conscientious belief exemption legislation in that state.)

Panelists defending current vaccine policies and opposing philosophical exemptions included New York pediatricians Paul Lee, M.D. , who agreed vaccine safety should be a high priority but disagreed that the amount of mercury and aluminum in vaccines posed a health risk; and longtime vaccine policymaker and American Academy of Pediatrics spokesperson Louis Z. Cooper, M.D. , who agreed trust between pediatricians and parents needs to be strengthened but defended the safety of existing vaccine policies; and Debra Blog, M.D. , medical director of the Immunization Program, New York State Department of Health, who showed slides of children with infectious diseases and strongly opposed adding philosophical exemption to New York state vaccine laws.

Following panelist presentations there was a spirited debate that lasted for more than two hours as panelists argued and defended their positions. NVIC’s videographer, Chris Fisher, will be making a video of the day’s events available on NVIC’s website.

By the end of the day, I thought about how long parents of vaccine injured children have been asking pediatricians to become partners with them in preventing vaccine injuries and deaths. After nearly three decades, parents and doctors inside and outside of government could not be further apart. The failure of pediatricians and public health officials to take seriously the many cases of regression into poor health after vaccination has become the Number One public health problem in the U.S. today.

There will be no resolution until every state has embraced the informed consent ethic and adopted conscientious or philosophical exemption to vaccination in state vaccine laws. At that point, Americans will be free to vote with their feet and the vaccines the public considers to be necessary, safe and effective will be used and those they do not consider to be necessary, safe and effective will be driven off the market. And then, a real time comparison of the long term health of highly vaccinated, less vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens will tell us a lot about the safety and effectiveness of vaccine policies in the last half of the 20th and first half of the 21st centuries.

Statement of Barbara Loe Fisher
Co-founder & President, National Vaccine Information Center
December 15, 2008 at New York Stony Brook University
Vaccine Education Roundtable

Assemblyman Alessi and NY State Legislators:

Thank you for holding this Vaccine Education Roundtable to discuss issues which impact on Assembly Bill 5468 to insert philosophical exemption in New York vaccine laws. I appreciate the invitation to be part of this panel on behalf of New York members of the National Vaccine Information Center, non-profit organization founded in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and defend the informed consent ethic.

Vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person which carries an inherent risk of injury or death. The risk of harm can be greater for some than others and there is no guarantee that vaccination will, in fact, confer immunity. With very few predictors having been identified by medical science to give advance warning that harm or failure to confer immunity will occur, vaccination is a medical procedure that could reasonably be termed as experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual.

Further, the FDA, CDC and vaccine makers openly state that often the numbers of human subjects used in pre-licensing studies are too small to detect all adverse events caused by a new vaccine. This makes government recommended use of newly licensed vaccines by millions of children a de facto uncontrolled national scientific experiment. In this regard, the ethical principle of informed consent to vaccination attains even greater significance.

Informed consent means that a patient or guardian has the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical procedure and be allowed to make an informed, voluntary decision about whether or not to take the risk. Informed consent is an important check and balance for the relationship between physicians and patients that encourages physicians to obey the Hippocratic oath to “first, do no harm.”

The affirmation of the informed consent ethic in the practice of modern medicine is rooted in a rejection of the traditional paternalistic medical model, which places the patient or guardian in an unequal, powerless position with a physician and facilitates uninformed, involuntary risk taking. The human right for individuals to exercise informed consent to participating in scientific experiments was officially acknowledged by the judges of the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II. Their ringing endorsement of individual inviolability and the right to self determination when taking medical risks has became an internationally accepted moral guidepost for the ethical practice of modern medicine. The first principle of the Nuremberg Code begins with:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

In America, the closest we come to upholding the informed consent principle with regard to vaccination is in the 18 states which allow personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination. In the 2008 edition of America’s Health Rankings, Vermont is ranked the number one healthiest state. Vermont allows philosophical exemption to vaccination. In fact, out of the top ten ranked healthiest states, six of them allow philosophical exemption (Vermont, Minnesota, Utah, Idaho, Maine, Washington).

New York ranks 25th in health behind the nation’s most populous state, California. The state of California has twice as many residents as New York, as well as more foreign born residents and those who speak English as a second language. However, in almost all other demographics, California is nearly identical to New York in ethnic diversity; numbers of children under age 18; median household income and persons living below poverty.

California allows philosophical exemption to vaccination.

What is interesting is that in the top 10 healthiest states, four had among the lowest vaccination rates for children ages 19 to 35 months: Utah (37th) , Idaho (45th), Maine (40th) and Washington (48th). California which is ahead of New York in overall health ranking, is 31st in vaccination coverage of 19 to 35 month olds while New York is number 9. The healthiest state, Vermont, is 29th in vaccination coverage.

In fact, health is not primarily measured by high vaccination rates or an absence of infectious disease. High vaccination rates are not the most important measure of the overall health of citizens. The 18 states allowing philosophical exemption to vaccination have not compromised individual or public health when compared to other states.

This past September, the CDC announced that national childhood vaccination rates are at near record levels, with at least 90 percent of young children receiving all but one CDC recommended vaccine. Less than 1 percent of children aged 19 to 35 months remain completely unvaccinated.

Today, the U.S. government recommends the use of more vaccines than any other country in the world: 69 doses of 16 vaccines for girls; 66 doses of 15 vaccines for boys given between the day of birth and age 18. That is triple the numbers of vaccinations recommended by public health officials and physician organizations a quarter century ago, when 23 doses of seven vaccines (DPT, MMR, OPV) were routinely given.

But in comparison to other nations, the overall health of Americans has not improved since 2004 and there are 27 countries that exceed the US in healthy life expectancy while the U.S. ranks 39th in infant mortality.

Today, 1 in every 143 babies born in America dies; 1 child in 450 becomes diabetic; 1 in 150 develops autism;1 in 9 suffers with asthma; and 1 in every 6 child is learning disabled.

The chronic disease and disability epidemic that has developed in the last quarter century is killing and injuring more children than any infectious disease epidemic in the history of our nation, including smallpox and polio. The social, economic, and human costs are enormous: nearly two billion dollars has been paid to vaccine victims by the federal government in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program while three-quarters of the more than $2 trillion dollar annual price tag for health care is spent to care for the chronically ill and disabled.

The big question vaccine educated parents are asking is: why are so many of the most highly vaccinated children in the world so sick, suffering with all kinds of chronic brain and immune system dysfunction? Why are babies born in the richest country in the world dying more often than babies born in poorer countries, who do not get vaccinated at all or who get far fewer vaccines?

It is a question that has not been answered by any scientific study conducted to date because there has never been a large, prospective study comparing the long term health of highly vaccinated children to unvaccinated children. In the absence of definitive answers, the right to freely exercise medical, religious and philosophical exemption to vaccination is a human right that may well determine the biological integrity of this and future generations in America.

Because vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry significant risks greater for some than others; because doctors and public health officials are not infallible; because what is considered scientific truth today can be proven false tomorrow; because philosophical exemption to vaccination does not negatively impact on the health of individuals or states; and because informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right, the National Vaccine Information Center urges legislators to affirm the freedom of all New Yorkers to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions for themselves and their children by supporting philosophical exemption to vaccination.

Haunting Medical Journals

Haunting Medical Journals

 

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has begun an inquiry into the use of ghostwriters by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, to produce medical journals favorable to its hormone replacement therapy drug Prempro. The Senator has asked Wyeth and Design Write, the medical ghostwriting company, to disclose the payments and activities related to the production of the articles and doctors whose names wound up on the publications.

The Senator wrote to the CEO of Wyeth, Bernard J. Poussot, saying that “[a]ny attempt to manipulate the scientific literature, that can in turn mislead doctors to prescribe drugs that may not work and/or cause harm to their patients, is very troubling.”

In a response to Sen. Grassley’s letter, Wyeth spokesman Doug Petkus, said that the Senator was recycling old arguments, and that the authors of the articles had substantial editorial control over the content. Although documents show that Wyeth executives brain-stormed ideas, drafted outlines for the articles, titled them, paid ghostwriters and academic authors, and targeted publications to carry the stories.

The investigations from a number of lawsuits have produced pages upon pages of internal corporate documents that have demonstrated the central role played by Wyeth and Design Write in creating a media blitz that promoted hormone therapy for menopausal women.

One such article was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said that there was no definitive evidence that progestin (a key ingredient in Prempro) caused breast cancer, and that hormone users were more likely to survive cancer. This article was written over one year after the Women’s Health Initiative linked Prempro to breast cancer.

In 2001, hormone therapy peaked in the United States, and more than 126 million prescriptions were written for American women. Wyeth posted $3 billion in sales that year, but after the Women’s Health Initiative made its findings, sales fell dramatically. Some of the drugs are still available, but they are required to have the cancer warning on the bottle and are prescribed in the lowest doses.

Wyeth has had ghostwriting issues with other drugs, including the diet medications Pondimin and Redux. Merk has also been involved in ghostwriting for the painkilling drug Vioxx, which was linked to heart problems in 2004, and led to countless lawsuits. These companies have developed deliberate media strategies to push their drugs on doctors and patients, regardless of the negative information on their effects published by legitimate studies. Ghostwriting will likely continue to lead to potential health risks to patients, and legal action against doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully, Senator Grassley’s investigation will lead to strict regulations and penalties for ghostwriting misleading medical articles.

New Clues on Autism Susceptibility

New Clues to Who Is Susceptible to Autism Via Vaccine Injury

 By Scott Laster 

 

A study titled “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” by Brimacombe et al was published in 2007 in the Journal of Child Neurology.  The results of this study may have implications on the current debate over philosophical exemptions in New Jersey, and may yield important clues on how future public health policy might identify sub-groups that are susceptible to vaccine injury.

In this study, family histories were examined in a cohort of 164 autistic children referred to The Autism Center at New Jersey Medical School-University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark over a 2-year period (2001-2003).  The study found that a family medical history of certain illnesses was prevalent at significantly higher rates in the autism cohort versus the general population, such as thyroid disorders (20.8% in autism cohort vs 1.6% in general population), rheumatoid arthritis (10.4% vs < 1%), epilepsy (5.6% vs < 1%), and diabetes (23.2% vs 6.3%).   The average age of the autism cohort studied during this 2001-2003 period was 6.6 years.

This study did not define autism prevalence rates in New Jersey for sub-populations with each specific family medical history.  However with the autism prevalence data from the CDC for the state of New Jersey for the 1994 birth cohort (MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries February 9, 2007), calculations can be performed on this data to approximate the “risk of autism” for children in New Jersey born with certain family medical histories.

Disclaimer: the following calculations are mine only, and have not been vetted with the authors of the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” study.  As a further disclaimer, there is nothing in the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” study which refers to vaccines or indicates in any manner that the authors think that vaccines might be a causal factor in autism (on the contrary, the authors write that “… This work supports the underlying presence of genetic factors in the etiology of autism.”)

Per the CDC autism prevalence data, the 1994 birth cohort in New Jersey had a 1 in 94 risk of developing autism.  In the following table, I calculated the risk of a child developing autism if born in that 1994 New Jersey cohort with certain family medical histories.  A child born to family with a history of thyroid disorders had a 1 in 7 risk of autism (over 13 times higher than the risk of autism in the general population).  For rheumatoid arthritis, the autism risk was at least 1 in 8 and potentially higher (as with some illnesses as noted in the table, the data on general population prevalence in the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” was insufficient to determine if autism risk was higher than 1 in 8).  For epilepsy the risk was at least 1 in 15 (or higher); for diabetes, the autism risk was 1 in 26.

(Click on the graphic to enlarge it please.)

Notes on these calculations:  Although it is plausible that a child whose family medical history included multiple of these illnesses would have an autism risk higher than the autism risk from each individual illness, the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” study did not evaluate such combinations.  Similarly although it is plausible that a boy with family medical history of thyroid disorders would have an autism risk even higher than the 1 in 7 shown in the table, the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” study did not evaluate the risk of family medical history for boys versus girls.  Thus to be conservative, I’ve not included any analysis of autism risk for boys versus girls or for family medical history with multiple illnesses in this table.

What are the potential lessons from this analytical exercise?

1.    If vaccines contribute to autism in a susceptible sub-population, the public health challenge will be to determine how to identify the sub-groups that should utilize an alternative vaccination schedule or go without vaccines altogether (and thus rely upon the overall ‘herd immunity’ to protect them from vaccine-preventable diseases, as is already the policy for certain susceptible sub-populations).  The absence of an answer on how to identify the susceptible sub-groups could be a major factor in the reluctance of the CDC to formally concede that vaccines may be linked to autism in a susceptible group of children.  However, the “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” study provides clues as to the identity of the susceptible sub-groups, and further provides a method (clinical analysis of family medical history) to determine whether an individual child belongs to a susceptible sub-group. 

2.    The “Familial Risk Factors in Autism” did not study vaccines and does not provide any evidence (one way or the other) as to whether vaccines cause autism.  However, it does provide evidence that New Jersey families with certain family medical histories have a far higher risk of a child developing autism.  This research was recently published in 2007, and has not yet had time to be incorporated into public health policy such that susceptible New Jersey families could obtain a medical exemption based upon family medical history.  Many New Jersey families, after much personal research, have concluded that there is a significant possibility that vaccines contribute to autism.  Suppose that a New Jersey family with a family medical history of thyroid disorders knows that their child has a 1 in 7 chance of developing autism (based upon the above analysis of the “Familial Risk of Autism” study), and also has concluded that vaccines will further increase their child’s risk of autism.  Shouldn’t such a family be allowed to have a philosophical exemption from vaccines?